4 ms·

So they haven't rejected the null hypothesis yet, and they're still getting themselves written-up in the New York Times?

jsprogrammer 11y ago
The null hypothesis is unrejectable. Heh. Downmod.
- cshimmin 11y ago
  Null hypothesis: There is so such thing as toast. Experiment: I had toast for breakfast. Null hypothesis rejected.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    I believe "There is no such thing as toast." is only a theorem. Theorems may be rejected all day long. Edit: A null hypothesis in this schema would be something like (a bit ridiculous, but not my example): If toast exists and I eat it for breakfast, I should be able to detect that I ate it for breakfast at a higher rate than the false positive rate of my ability to determine whether what I eat for breakfast is or is not toast. Keep downmodding. Or, you know, refute what I have said.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      I didn't vote on your comment but I can't make enough sense out of it to write a refutation. There is a sort of "evolution is only a theory" flavor to the whole thing.
    - krick 11y ago
      You could just open the Wikipedia, you know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis — and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena — is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise criterion for rejecting a hypothesis.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        What is the relevance of this wikipedia quote to my comment?
empath75 11y ago
They're at about a 90% confidence level. They prefer to have better than that by several orders of magnitude, but it's probably worth talking about it a bit publicly at this point. There are lots of theoreticians writing papers right now trying to figure out what it could be. Most likely seems to be a second higgs (lots of theories predicted several flavors of higgs).
cshimmin 11y ago
Uh... the NYT is a news outlet. They reported news on the fact that we had a conference, and summarized the contents of the conference (we see possible hints of a new particle). It's not like we published a paper in a scientific journal claiming anything of the sort. At present there is also a write-up on the homepage of the NYT titled "NATO Nations No Longer Question Need for Alliance," which presumably doesn't reject any null hypothesis either. I guess we should snark about that as well.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

The null hypothesis is unrejectable. Heh. Downmod.

cshimmin 11y ago
Null hypothesis: There is so such thing as toast. Experiment: I had toast for breakfast. Null hypothesis rejected.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  I believe "There is no such thing as toast." is only a theorem. Theorems may be rejected all day long. Edit: A null hypothesis in this schema would be something like (a bit ridiculous, but not my example): If toast exists and I eat it for breakfast, I should be able to detect that I ate it for breakfast at a higher rate than the false positive rate of my ability to determine whether what I eat for breakfast is or is not toast. Keep downmodding. Or, you know, refute what I have said.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    I didn't vote on your comment but I can't make enough sense out of it to write a refutation. There is a sort of "evolution is only a theory" flavor to the whole thing.
  - krick 11y ago
    You could just open the Wikipedia, you know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis — and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena — is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise criterion for rejecting a hypothesis.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      What is the relevance of this wikipedia quote to my comment?

empath75 11y ago

They're at about a 90% confidence level. They prefer to have better than that by several orders of magnitude, but it's probably worth talking about it a bit publicly at this point. There are lots of theoreticians writing papers right now trying to figure out what it could be. Most likely seems to be a second higgs (lots of theories predicted several flavors of higgs).

cshimmin 11y ago

Uh... the NYT is a news outlet. They reported news on the fact that we had a conference, and summarized the contents of the conference (we see possible hints of a new particle). It's not like we published a paper in a scientific journal claiming anything of the sort. At present there is also a write-up on the homepage of the NYT titled "NATO Nations No Longer Question Need for Alliance," which presumably doesn't reject any null hypothesis either. I guess we should snark about that as well.