4 ms·

Now you're moving the goal posts. First, it was "a hypothesis is a statement that can be true or false. That's it." Now it's "a hypothesis is defined by stati

by lisper 2y ago

Now you're moving the goal posts. First, it was "a hypothesis is a statement that can be true or false. That's it." Now it's "a hypothesis is defined by statistics". Get back to me when you've decided what your position actually is. I'm not going to waste time debunking every half-baked idea you can come up with.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
The goal posts were never moved. What moved is your understanding of what I'm trying to say. A hypothesis is a statement that is TRUE or FALSE. And THIS is HOW it's defined by statistics. >I'm not going to waste time debunking every half-baked idea you can come up with. I'm sorry but this attitude is offensive and against the rules here. I can't participate in any further discussion with you because of this. Thank you for your time and good day.
- Koshkin 2y ago
  I don't think that physics (for example) uses the word "hypothesis" in the same sense, even though there are, indeed, parallels between the two sciences.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    What is the physics definition and what sciences are you referring to?
    - Koshkin 2y ago
      A statistical hypothesis is an assumption about a population parameter. A hypothesis in physics is something else entirely. (Incidentally, there are hypotheses in mathematics, too, called "conjectures"). You may disagree, but I see statistics as a science, akin to physics; which, perhaps, is why we also have "mathematical statistics."
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        Well both are statements that can be true or false. I would say in physics it's also a population parameter. It's just sometimes we feel so confident about a single observation that we only need to take 1 sample. >You may disagree, but I see statistics as a science, akin to physics I don't disagree. This has been my entire point. I define statistics as the foundational formal definition of the scientific method.
- lisper 2y ago
  > The goal posts were never moved. Yes, they were. You started out by saying, "a hypothesis is a statement that can be true or false. That's it." But that isn't "it" as you yourself found it necessary to explain. > I can't participate in any further discussion That's fine, I'm writing this response for the benefit of others who might be reading this: not only are both of your claims wrong, they are transparently wrong. "Santa Claus lives at the North Pole" is a statement that can be either true or false (it happens to be false) but it doesn't have the same standing as a scientific hypothesis as, say, "the laws of physics are invariant under Galilean relativity." That happens to be false too, but it is not nearly as false as "Santa Claus lives at the North Pole." And neither of these has anything to do with statistics. You clearly don't understand the first thing about how the scientific method actually works, starting with the fact that you cannot strip away "the cultural stuff." Science is a human endeavor. It is ultimately about accounting for our subjective experiences because that is all any of us have direct access to. This includes, but is not limited to, the fact that there seems to be this thing people do called "science", which has a bunch of interesting properties and turns out to be tremendously useful. Statistics are only a small part of that endeavor. An important part to be sure, but a small part nonetheless.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Dear comment reader, there's no benefit for reading this section of the thread. Not only is he wrong. He's been rude and insulting and in violation of the rules. I flagged his section of the thread. I'm not the moderator but I think this thread will be killed by him once he sees it. Meanwhile, before the moderator arrives, I'm placing this comment here to ask people to stop responding to him and aggravating the thread further. Thank you.
    - FabHK 2y ago
      Or maybe you're misguided? You seem to want to expound a fairly naive Popperian view of science, but cannot distinguish "proposition" from "hypothesis".
      - 2y ago

by lisper 2y ago

ninetyninenine 2y ago

The goal posts were never moved. What moved is your understanding of what I'm trying to say. A hypothesis is a statement that is TRUE or FALSE. And THIS is HOW it's defined by statistics. >I'm not going to waste time debunking every half-baked idea you can come up with. I'm sorry but this attitude is offensive and against the rules here. I can't participate in any further discussion with you because of this. Thank you for your time and good day.

Koshkin 2y ago
I don't think that physics (for example) uses the word "hypothesis" in the same sense, even though there are, indeed, parallels between the two sciences.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  What is the physics definition and what sciences are you referring to?
  - Koshkin 2y ago
    A statistical hypothesis is an assumption about a population parameter. A hypothesis in physics is something else entirely. (Incidentally, there are hypotheses in mathematics, too, called "conjectures"). You may disagree, but I see statistics as a science, akin to physics; which, perhaps, is why we also have "mathematical statistics."
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Well both are statements that can be true or false. I would say in physics it's also a population parameter. It's just sometimes we feel so confident about a single observation that we only need to take 1 sample. >You may disagree, but I see statistics as a science, akin to physics I don't disagree. This has been my entire point. I define statistics as the foundational formal definition of the scientific method.
lisper 2y ago
> The goal posts were never moved. Yes, they were. You started out by saying, "a hypothesis is a statement that can be true or false. That's it." But that isn't "it" as you yourself found it necessary to explain. > I can't participate in any further discussion That's fine, I'm writing this response for the benefit of others who might be reading this: not only are both of your claims wrong, they are transparently wrong. "Santa Claus lives at the North Pole" is a statement that can be either true or false (it happens to be false) but it doesn't have the same standing as a scientific hypothesis as, say, "the laws of physics are invariant under Galilean relativity." That happens to be false too, but it is not nearly as false as "Santa Claus lives at the North Pole." And neither of these has anything to do with statistics. You clearly don't understand the first thing about how the scientific method actually works, starting with the fact that you cannot strip away "the cultural stuff." Science is a human endeavor. It is ultimately about accounting for our subjective experiences because that is all any of us have direct access to. This includes, but is not limited to, the fact that there seems to be this thing people do called "science", which has a bunch of interesting properties and turns out to be tremendously useful. Statistics are only a small part of that endeavor. An important part to be sure, but a small part nonetheless.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Dear comment reader, there's no benefit for reading this section of the thread. Not only is he wrong. He's been rude and insulting and in violation of the rules. I flagged his section of the thread. I'm not the moderator but I think this thread will be killed by him once he sees it. Meanwhile, before the moderator arrives, I'm placing this comment here to ask people to stop responding to him and aggravating the thread further. Thank you.
  - FabHK 2y ago
    Or maybe you're misguided? You seem to want to expound a fairly naive Popperian view of science, but cannot distinguish "proposition" from "hypothesis".
    - 2y ago