  Counterfactual definiteness is supposed to underlie the Bell theorem. An old
controversy exists among those who reject the theorem implications by rejecting
counterfactual definiteness and those who claim that, since it is a direct
consequence of locality, it cannot be independently rejected. We propose a
different approach for solving this contentious issue by realizing that
counterfactual definiteness is an unnecessary and inconsistent assumption.
Counterfactual definiteness is not equivalent to realism or determinism neither
it follows from locality. It merely reduces to an incongruent application of
counterfactual reasoning. Being incompatible with falsifiability, it
constitutes an unjustified assumption that goes against the scientific method's
rigor. Correct formulations of the Bell theorem's bases show it is absent
either as a fundamental hypothesis or as a consequence of something else. Most
importantly, we present a coherent Bell inequality derivation carefully devised
to show explicitly and convincingly the absence of incompatible experiments or
counterfactual reasoning. Thus, even admitting that counterfactual definiteness
could be a consistent assumption, the necessary conclusion is that it is
irrelevant for the inequality formulation and can be safely ignored when
discussing Bell's inequality philosophical and physical implications.
