Search results

jem: "For instance if I had a population of Generals who have won four battles vs generals who have lost two battles or generals who have never been in battle. I might find generals make a difference." That's the key isn't it? Only if you had these generals, only if you could pit them against...

But you may not accept it as true either - and that's the whole point of this discussion.

As for the ID theory, it's quite simple. The null hypothesis is that there is no design. Prove that it's false, then you have a valid design theory. Otherwise, you're just talking philosophy, not science.

You're back to your usual distortion trick. The nonsensical results part was refering that the usual null hypothesis (the opposite of arbitrary alternative hypothesis) can be such poor targets, that they can be easily proven false. Then people use its rejection to claim that the alternative...

I don't know about other things that you mentioned, but if you want to put partisanship aside, can you stop lying for a moment? How can you pin cambodia on democrats? Nixon invaded cambodia, against wide spread opposition in the US, in near parallel to what Bush is doing now. How can you...

I had repeated many times that I would not know whether it is true or not. But the point is that without the rejection of the null hypothesis, you cannot claim that the opposite is true. BTW, the null hypothesis is supposed to be "a bit looney" because you expect it to be proven false. The...

I admit that I was confused by what I consider to be proper definition of null hypothesis and what is generally accepted way of setting up and testing null hypothesis. My definition is more stricter than the usual definition but I often forget that. What you cited certainly reflects this...

This use of the null hypothesis is based on prior knowledge that drug B is already more effective than placebo, so that if A is more effective than B, then A is automatically more effective than placebo. Normally, null hypothesis would be the default hypothesis that rejects all a priori...

Wrong. This is an assumption just as the assumptions "A is more effective than B" and "A is less effective than B." There is no reason to make "A is equally effective as B" a special assumption. None of them is a null hypothesis. You have no idea what a null hypothesis is. If you like, you...

BTW, this would be a flawed trial design because it doesn't test against the null hypothesis.

No. The more you say, the more you show that you don't understand what a null hypothesis is. Null means none, nothing, nada, zero, zilch. Do you get it now?

What analysis? Do you have any idea what a null hypothesis is? Let me repeat, ask nicely and someone might explain it to you. Or you can choose to be arrogant and continue to expose your ignorance. Edit: You added that last sentence after I typed the reply. This is funnier now. You have no...

People are smarter than the pollsters. They see that question as a twisted way to drum up support for surge, so they give negative answers to voice they opposition to the idea. If 40% of a population is truly unpatriotic, then there is something wrong with the government. Don't blame the people.

Because you were quoting in an approving manner a fundamentalist point of view. Fundamentalism is harmful and needs to be fought everywhere you see them. 1. Don't put words I didn't say in my quotes. 2. I'm glad you see the conflict. That was the point of my post. Unfortunately you were...

"Create" a null hypothesis? How many more jokes are you going to create in this thread? If you have no idea what a null hypothesis is, ask nicely and someone might clue you in.

Philosophers existed since the beginning of human civilization. Science only started a few hundred years ago. Why? Because it's hard to know what can be known, and what cannot be known. Once people understand the difference between the two domains, the real progress can be made by expanding...

I'm impressed with your Bible experience, Turok. But don't you think the two posts quoted here contradict each other? I was just trying to make the point in your second post, with some snark.

The neocons are back at their lying and smearing tactics. This is really wearing old. Interesting this time it's AAA who's doing the job. He is not normally known as a rumor monger. Here is the real scoop: "CNN debunks false report about Obama"...

Good post, Kent. It reminds me the saying that those who ponder the unknowable are philosophers, but those who ponder the knowable are scientists.

How can you know what a null hypothesis is and then continue with this nonsense? Everything you've said so far tells me that you have no clue what a null hypothesis is.