3 ms·
I think this is just an argument over semantics, the "null hypothesis" is a perfectly valid model using the definition of the statistics community [0] (i.e. a c
by fluxion 10y ago
I think this is just an argument over semantics, the "null hypothesis" is a perfectly valid model using the definition of the statistics community [0] (i.e. a collection of probability distributions over some sample space).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_model
- lisper 10y agoThe word "model" is being used here in two mutually incompatible ways. Yes, the null hypothesis is a model, but it is not an explanatory model. A scientific hypothesis has to meet two tests to be considered a valid theory. It has to be consistent with the data, and it has to have explanatory power. The theory that cancer drugs work by aligning a patient's chi with their chakras is rejected not because it is inconsistent with the data (it's not) but because it lacks the explanatory power of alternative theories based on molecular biology. The null hypothesis never has explanatory power. The null hypothesis is always a statement of the form, "The explanatory hypothesis under test is wrong for some unknown reason." This is why rejecting the null hypothesis, i.e. showing that the data are (with high probability) inconsistent with the null hypothesis, is considered a positive result.