XPost: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: sbalneav@alburg.net   
      
   In alt.atheism 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?   
   >   
   > if the null hypothesis is not rejected, does that mean that   
   > the null hypothesis is true?   
      
   No, of course not.  But in the absence of anything to indicate otherwise,   
   that's what you go with.   
      
   > worse still, if the null hypothesis is accepted at x% level   
   > of significance, do we know the actual probability that it   
   > is mistaken?   
      
   No, we don't.  That's the reason why the Null hypothesis can always be   
   overturned.  It's also the reason why it's called a Hypothesis.   
      
   > [ Remember: Just answer the damn question, not the questioner!  Don't   
   > presume. ]   
      
   --   
    __ _  | Misfortune seldom intrudes upon the wise man; his greatest and   
   (_ |_) | highest interests are directed by reason throughout the course   
   __)|_) | of life.  -- Epicurus, 341-270 BCE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)