ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

Archived Articles

8/28/2007                                                                                       View Comments

The Null Hypothesis



A defense of atheism using the null hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise. In classical science, the null hypothesis is used to test differences in treatment and control groups, and the assumption at the outset of the experiment is that no difference exists between the two groups for the variable being compared.

To monitor comments posted to this topic, use .

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Presumed" true until contrary evidence is provided?

Hardly an accurate statement of the scientific method, which holds that a hypothesis is unconfirmed UNTIL confirmation is provided.

Moreover, true scientists...not propagandists...like Einsten always held that there hypotheis were provisional and subject to being overturned.

SpaceMonk said...

Anonymous, you so stupId.

anakin said...

This is some good ass-whipping material in a debate against a theist.

StevenCody said...

Hey EVERYONE I have a clarification to make for you ALL. LOL!

The presumed true part is the Null Hypothesis itself and not the results. The Null Hyp' is presuming there is no results.

I see where you got confused and I'm not trying to be mean or anything. If you watch the entire video you might get it or maybe you did and missed it. I almost didn't get it, but once I held my attention I got it.

I see how people will make this mistake about this often. It's not a good way to convert or as propaganda because it's a little confusing in the wording.

So, just to clarify, you are right and that is exactly what this video says as well. It's the descriptions wording that you have to pay attention to.

Oh, and by the way-This type os observation is most present in the analytical mind of a scientist and or athiest.

I really think you (like most) expected or asumed yourself what he was trying to say instead of actually hearing him. That is the opposite of the Null Hypothosis in assuming the outcome before the results.

I know I know Im wordy

Peace

Also banned in Kansas said...

You are not wordy, you are bullshitting.

Blowing smoke.

Covering up.

There was no mistake.

Its bullshit.

StevenCody said...

Well wether I'm bullshitting or not I know I was wordy. I'm not asking you to believe me in any way. I don't need to bullshit to make anyone believe. I'm just asking you to look at what someone said, because it was misinterpreted. It's obvious if you look at it. I didn't even say what I for sure believe.

I have no need to bullshit. I hope you can overcome your pride and apologize when you realize your mistake.

Sorry to offend, it was not my intention.

Peace

Aspentroll said...

To Also Banned in Kansas:

Such anger you present. Why don't you direct all that anger where it is needed?

There are pedophile priests to kill, thieving pastors to beat on, Ted Haggard, Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn need your attention. So go get 'em killer.

I don't think we're in kansas anymore! said...

Don't forget Kenneth Copeland, John Hagee, and my good friend, "Pat Robertson"

These 3 also need your attention "Banned In Kansas".