Null hypothesis is often the default.
I say "often" and not "always", because there are exemptions to such claim.
The atheists make the claim than the lack of god is the "default", and I have no evidence to counter such claim.
My challenge is to submit an example where the "null hypothesis" is NOT the DEFAULT. In other words: When is it allowed to claim that the "defendant" is "guilty" whether you have just met him/her and you do not have evidence that he/she is "guilty"!
It is a hard question, however it should be done.
I am in Panama, and once I move to Stockholm I will film a video with one of the answers... at least the one I know.
I say "often" and not "always", because there are exemptions to such claim.
The atheists make the claim than the lack of god is the "default", and I have no evidence to counter such claim.
My challenge is to submit an example where the "null hypothesis" is NOT the DEFAULT. In other words: When is it allowed to claim that the "defendant" is "guilty" whether you have just met him/her and you do not have evidence that he/she is "guilty"!
It is a hard question, however it should be done.
I am in Panama, and once I move to Stockholm I will film a video with one of the answers... at least the one I know.