f198adc8   
   XPost: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: always@ask.questions   
      
   On 25/12/2012 11:34 PM, Immortalist wrote:   
   > On Dec 25, 2:44 am, TheInquirer  wrote:   
   >> On 25/12/2012 4:03 AM, Immortalist wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> In science the null hypothesis or default theory is just a way to   
   >>> start from scratch and then see what the evidence supports. Its a way   
   >>> to avoid dogmatic bias.   
   >>   
   >> won't that be out of the frying pan, into the fire?   
   >>   
   >   
   > No.   
      
      
   why no?  if the null hypothesis is used to support the null hypothesis,   
   isn't that circular argument?  and wouldn't this procedure increase   
   dogmatic bias?   
      
      
      
   >> if the null hypothesis is not rejected, does that mean that   
   >> the null hypothesis is true?   
   >>   
   >   
   > No, it just weakens the theory it challenges.   
      
      
   i thought null hypotheses are set up to be rejected, in a   
   sort of probabilistic "prove by contradiction" manner?   
      
      
      
   >> worse still, if the null hypothesis is accepted at x% level   
   >> of significance, do we know the actual probability that it   
   >> is mistaken?   
   >>   
   >   
   > If matters remain at the level of denial and simple assertion, we have   
   > arrived at an impasse, and neither party to the dispute can claim   
   > victory. It is essential that we move beyond this level of   
   > argumentation.   
      
   precisely my point.   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >> [ Remember: Just answer the damn question, not the questioner!  Don't   
   >> presume. ]   
   >>   
   >   
   > No, you can fuck off on that request.   
      
   actually, it was not directed at you.  among all netters, you   
   so far have been the most valuable at answering all my questions.   
   other netters are not that helpful or nice.   
      
   nevertheless, i'd rather that people stick to the questions and   
   try not to focus to on me.   
      
      
      
   > - A Skeptical Rejoinder: The Employment of the Notion   
   > of Probability Begs the Question Against the Skeptic   
      
   very good.  and that was _precisely_ why i asked   
      
      
      
      
   >   
   >> Just answer the damn question, not the questioner!  Don't   
   >> presume.  My personal matters/beliefs are none of your   
   >> business.  I ask, you answer.  If you think my questions   
   >> are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,   
   >> not me.  If you don't know the answer, can you please   
   >> "pass" to more capable person(s) to answer?   
   >   
   > Fuck that.   
      
   actually, it was not directed at you.  among all netters, you   
   so far have been the most valuable at answering all my questions.   
   other netters are not that helpful or nice.   
      
   nevertheless, i'd rather that people stick to the questions and   
   try not to focus to on me.   
      
      
   --   
   I ask, becos I'm curious.   
      
   Just answer the damn question, not the questioner!  Don't   
   presume.  My personal matters/beliefs are none of your   
   business.  I ask, you answer.  If you think my questions   
   are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,   
   not me.  If you don't know the answer, can you please   
   "pass" to more capable person(s) to answer?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)