Oliver,

Surely someone with an understanding of science, as you portray, would understand the limitations of the use of a null hypothesis.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

“Gerd Gigerenzer has called null hypothesis testing "mindless statistics" while Jacob Cohen describes it as a ritual conducted to convince ourselves that we have the evidence needed to confirm our theories.” (Sorry about my call to authority with names mostly unknown to the reader, but you seem to relish in this method of argument – I was really showing how some people see valid restrictions in the method)

These comments are reference to instances when the likelihood of a null hypothesis being correct is very low as to be negligible or of it having a very low probability factor etc. If you are holding to scientific principle, as you claim, then the above should be no surprise to you. The question is why then perseveres with this fallacious type of arguing.

To make it absolutely clear as to what I am saying, as an example, if I drop a brick, aimed at my toe, using all known physics, to create a null hypothesis where it won’t hit my toe, is beyond stupidity.

This is why I have asked you again, now for the third time, to supply the examples of null hypotheses, you claim to have used for the existence of a god or supernatural realm. Stating that you apply null hypotheses to confirm an assertion that a god does not exist, is one thing; to actually have done it successfully and not as an exercise in futility, is quite another.

I’m not sure if you understand but you are supplying unwarranted comfort to those professing the existence of imaginary supernatural states and beings, notions which oppress a large portion of humanity and would fully do so given half a chance. My guess is, you do this just for the sake of your own ego or some other unknown purpose and not as way to enlightenment. But, as I often say; “Atheism is not an automatic inoculation etc…”

I really think you should stop.

David

Oliver,

I offer my commiserations for your problems. However, when using the internet, face value rules until told otherwise.

You are quick to defend yourself on the basis of ad hominem attack, but slow to defend statements you have made about null hypothesis in science. I think you should look up what ad hominem, call to authority and obfuscation, really mean. I am being more mild than I should be, considering the provocation of your style, lack of response to a simple question and content.

If this is a result of your health, then maybe this topic is not for you.

My previous post stands.

David

David,

Get real. "Wikipedia"! It is a bit like playing Russian Roulette,as regards to quality.

"This is why I have asked you again, now for the third time, to supply the examples of null hypotheses, you claim to have used for the existence of a god or supernatural {v.}realm." :

-- I have used several: four-dimensional space to Euclid, QM to Einstein,Three supra~mensional dimensions of a 6 Space Hyper Cube and positron to Durac. All are super nature {n.} Religion doesn't have a monopoly on these transcendental matters.

-- Space--

"'if I drop a brick, aimed at my toe, using all known physics, to create a null hypothesis:

-- {it} The brick ‘won’t hit my toe', is beyond stupidity."

-1- If the brick hits your toe, the null hypothesis is confirmed. Ouch!

-2- If someone pushes you over, and the brick misses, a mediating viable has been introduced, and, the null hypothesis in rejected: i.e., The brick did not hit your toe.

Afterwards, a new null hypothesis is framed to include the existence of mediating forces, is framed.

I will check your authors/citations in peer reviewed journals.

-A null hypothesis come first, before its alternative: Trust even Wikipedia knows that?

-Yes; null hypotheses “are” more common in Statistics and the Physical Sciences than in the Soft Sciences; except some, e.g., Pyschometrics.

- The probability of a contrived god(s) needs to be test "there is no god". A test: One reads/checks Wells on the Alexandrian God Factories and finds counter evidence and [tentatively] rejects the null hypothesis. Then, say, all evidence on the Middle Eastern the existence of gods is exhausted: But what about Aztec gods?

What Karl Popper says about falsification is apt too. Neither, Theists or Antitheist should just confirm. One “oneself” reads Revelation and Dawkins. Don’t just sit.

Testing is important even in qualitative method. Conjectures need to be falsifible.
You haven't addressed why, all disproving knowledge must come from the Theist adequately. Why can't you investigate take on some of the burden on yourself?
Just sitting waiting for an opponent, with limited knowledge, is likely to lead nowhere.

“Gerd Gigerenzer has called null hypothesis testing "mindless statistics"…. “I admire him [Geoffrey Loftus?] for having the courage to stand up against mindless null hypothesis testing.” [Gigerenzer]

That is, else put, “Statistics are not mindful”: Hmmm… Gigerenzer’s own null hypothesis?

Regrading null hypotheses, the key issue for behavioural sciences is the values of significance can change between tests and retests.

-Defintions to come- Will us Popkin et al

Oliver,

The information about null hypothesis from Wikipedia was so clear and understandable that it would not have mattered if was on a dunny wall.

“-- I have used several: four-dimensional space to Euclid, QM to Einstein,Three supra~mensional dimensions of a 6 Space Hyper Cube and positron to Durac. All are super nature {n.} Religion doesn't have a monopoly on these transcendental matters.”

Lumping together all proposed metaphysical phenomena and classing it as a null hypothesis for the non existence of a god and a supernatural realm, is one of the better examples of a non sequitur that I have recently seen.

Your latest post is going very near a metaphysical area of gobbledygook.

David

David,

NULL HYPOTHESES

A null hypothises is, "a statement in which no difference of effect is expected. If there are differences changes will be made". [Malhotra]. In a "statistical" test, the null hypotheses and alternative hypothesis are used to determine the experiment design to be employed based the level of significance [alpha]. Some in the "behavioural" sciences challenge this approach, because the value of alpha can change from day-to-day. Say testing Greeks will out perform Italians on IQ tests. Ten different tests could yield ten different results. Contrarily, I am not saying God does exist on Monday, does exist on Tuesday, does not exist on Wednesday ... .

Your antagonists are dealing with statistical use in the social sciences.

Besides, I am using hypotheses, because you feel extrapolations of Lakatos elitist in a public forum. I prefer the idea of concurrently maintaining a main heuristic and a degraded heuristic: Whilst I firmly beleive something, I don't slam the door in the face of an opposing view sitting there cacooned in my self-confirming thoughts.

I still need to deal with the concept of the supernatural and give you some definitions on Logic.

-- David, why do you feel that a Theist must carry the full investigative burden of proof? Dawkins didn't. He did some research of his own. Would it not be better if the "sides" regarded the pursuit a co-operative endeavour?

--SPACE--