New evidence showing economically similar regions did not revolt

why one piece of contrary evidence does not automatically destroy a theory.

Suppose Theory A says:

Severe economic hardship causes rebellion.

Then we discover:

Region X suffered severe hardship but did not rebel.

Possible explanations include:

stronger repression,

greater social cohesion,

weaker revolutionary organization,

religious beliefs discouraging rebellion,

population differences,

different political institutions,

greater ability to tolerate hardship.

So the evidence challenges a simple universal formulation:

“Whenever severe hardship occurs, rebellion occurs.”

It does not necessarily destroy a more qualified theory:

“Severe hardship can contribute to rebellion when organizational and political conditions permit.”