Null hypothesis default challenge!

[Hedley]

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.

 

[Clotifoth]

I have no idea, man. Looking forward to that video

 

[lrkun]

Define what a null hypothesis is. ^-^ hehe.

 

[Prolescum]

Whilst we wait, we can look here and see if it fits.

 

[lrkun]

I don't see why it is the null hypothesis. To me it only provides a claim. ^-^ (refer to the first post) Or it could be seen as an alternative hypothesis.

-oOo-

In a strict sense the default position is that it is not known. To say that it does not exist or exist is an alternative hypothesis.

-oOo-

If you observe the claim that God does not exist as a default, it does help atheists in their position in not proving the existence of god, thus circumventing the argument.

 

[Hedley]

Indeed the wikipedia HAS an entry for the stuff I was thinking, but indeed the null hypothesis should be demonstrated and you have to look for evidence to accept it! Therefore it is NOT the default!

As an atheist, I must reject the null hypothesis -in this case- before the inquiry is done, since a lot of harm will happen if I take it for granted beforehand.

I hope that you think in order to get it!

:arrow: :idea:

 

[lrkun]

Indeed the wikipedia HAS an entry for the stuff I was thinking, but indeed the null hypothesis should be demonstrated and you have to look for evidence to accept it! Therefore it is NOT the default!

As an atheist, I must reject the null hypothesis -in this case- before the inquiry is done, since a lot of harm will happen if I take it for granted beforehand.

I hope that you think in order to get it!

:arrow: :idea:

Let's hope. ^^

 

[Hedley]

Screening:
Nobody is healthy!

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It is a rather interesting point of view. I do not defend that we should live accordingly to the null hypothesis unless otherwise proven wrong simply because it is a one solution fits all kind of situation that isn't efficient in opposition to critical case analysis. In fact the null hypothesis must not work out in all situation or else there wouldn't be a condition "unless proven otherwise" in it and it is therefore a position of uncertainty for which you cannot acknowledge its efficacy if not on a case by case basis (which can also be groups of things). Added of course the aggravated situation that not every situation has a null hypothesis.
But let me play the devil's advocate here because it was abundantly clear to me that your example doesn't fit in the same standards as the others do. One is an argument of existence altogether and the other is a argument about something that is known to exist but with a relative uncertain in regards to the certain conditions that would allow it to manifest or be possessed by something in that moment in time.

Let me give other examples with some modified variables to exemplify this. Imagine that I believed that fairies would punch you in the face every time they hear me speak the word Argablegoick, and I avoid saying that word just to be safe. In this case the null hypothesis rules because fairies have no indication whatsoever of existing altogether (also that it is very unlikely give previous experiences that they would, tell that to a kid and their attitude towards it changes dramatically), but now imagine the exact same situation with the slight variation that NASA found fairies on Mars. Not so dumb of a belief now, is it? Even if it is still not true.

Now going back to your example of a person in a hospital which is suspected to have a life threatening situation and we don't know if he/she has it or not. The null hypostasis would be that everyone is healthy. The question here isn't if the disease exists altogether but rather if the particular person in question has it or not. Now the case turns from a simple assessment of existence to a situation of "given what we know, what can we do to minimize damage".
If the person doesn't have the disease and we do nothing everything is fine and dandy. If the person has the disease and we give them the treatment, it would suck but everything will come out fine and dandy. But what if we are wrong? If the person doesn't have the disease and we give them the treatment, it would suck but no harm done and everyone would be eased. If the person has the disease and we don't administer the treatment, then he/she will die and would suck pretty bad and we don't want that. So given what we know, it is safer to administer the treatment, and the end result of this policy will statistically save people even if on some cases it would simply suck.
But imagine if a patient entered in the doctor's office and claimed that he/she might have a rare disease that "can cause your ass to turn purple with yellow spots, rainbow diarrhea and death" if you do not "remove her/his appendix" for which you didn't even knew if the disease ever existed. Would removing his/her appendix just to be safe the appropriate thing to do?
Now imagine another situation by which the disease is known, but doesn't have grave consequences on the contrary the treatment could. In this case it appears more than obvious not to act should be the right policy. If neither the disease nor the treatment has severe consequences then what you do doesn't matter.
But what if the potential disease could be fatal but administrating the treatment could be fatal if the person is not sick (due to some required process that is expected to interact with the disease)? Perhaps waiting for more definitive answer is a better option. What if it is a situation in between in a complex probability function?

Just something to chew on about.

 

[awestby]

I don't see why it is the null hypothesis. To me it only provides a claim. ^-^ (refer to the first post) Or it could be seen as an alternative hypothesis.

-oOo-

In a strict sense the default position is that it is not known. To say that it does not exist or exist is an alternative hypothesis.

-oOo-

If you observe the claim that God does not exist as a default, it does help atheists in their position in not proving the existence of god, thus circumventing the argument.

Indeed. This "by default" arguement creationists use frequently can actually be used against them. Science never claim to know, the accepted theories out there does not claim to know either! so we dont need to answer, the only reason we reject god is, we can't observe,measure and test him so we just leave him out, when the creationists claim to have all the facts and therefore should be the ones to tell us about it!
Their answe however is quite amusing and cant be countered. yet. however, i spend quite alot of time to figure out ways to counter them, and here is one.

Creationists say: GOD is outside the universe (that he created" and big bang support it, in one way yes it does but, Ask them this, If god created the univese, and are out side, why does Universe continues to expand in even greater velocity? i you think about it! why dont GOD have everything fixed? i know i would if i were god. you see creationist build there claims on cause purpose, but its no gain for the universe to continue to expand because the known world as we know it, works well in the current state. why the need to desturb the order witn an even greated expantion? this is actually and arguement they cant answer.

The second arguement that can be used, if you want to debate with none facts on the same level as them (the only level they seem to understand) is when they say, it need to be a cause, a meaning, so god did it! and then they argue that we need to find the meaning. (Like the moral arguement) i personally just replay! - it was a mistake. the big bang was a huge mistake by nature! because if you look from the nature perspective it really is! obviously "nature" before big bang had the ultimate way to convert energi.

I have found it impossible to debate creationists with facts because they either reject it or deny facts when it does not suit their ideology. so by using philosofy you can counter their agruments with reason and no need to support it with facts that they dont care about anyway.

//
Anders
PS
I wnant to Thank Andromedeswake,Thunderf00t,Donexudos2 . their impressive work on youtube, i would love to contribute,. but my knowledge of film making is rather limited.

 

[lrkun]

[showmoremsg msg=Null Hypothesis]Null hypothesis: This is usually a statement of "no effect", that is to say that the independent variable will not have any effect on the dependent variable and that any differences between the experimental and control groups are attributable to chance. The null hypothesis is usually represented by the symbol H0, and is stated in order that it can be rejected as an explanation for the results of the experiment.[/showmoremsg]

Sometimes, I wonder if the term null hypothesis really applies by analogy as the default setting or maybe it is being used in a manner which isn't akin to how it is so. How does one do a statistical analysis as regards the existence of a mermaid or god?

 

[Hedley]

Now going back to your example of a person in a hospital which is suspected to have a life threatening situation and we don't know if he/she has it or not. The null hypostasis would be that everyone is healthy. The question here isn't if the disease exists altogether but rather if the particular person in question has it or not. Now the case turns from a simple assessment of existence to a situation of "given what we know, what can we do to minimize damage".
If the person doesn't have the disease and we do nothing everything is fine and dandy. If the person has the disease and we give them the treatment, it would suck but everything will come out fine and dandy. But what if we are wrong? If the person doesn't have the disease and we give them the treatment, it would suck but no harm done and everyone would be eased. If the person has the disease and we don't administer the treatment, then he/she will die and would suck pretty bad and we don't want that. So given what we know, it is safer to administer the treatment, and the end result of this policy will statistically save people even if on some cases it would simply suck.
But imagine if a patient entered in the doctor's office and claimed that he/she might have a rare disease that "can cause your ass to turn purple with yellow spots, rainbow diarrhea and death" if you do not "remove her/his appendix" for which you didn't even knew if the disease ever existed. Would removing his/her appendix just to be safe the appropriate thing to do?
Now imagine another situation by which the disease is known, but doesn't have grave consequences on the contrary the treatment could. In this case it appears more than obvious not to act should be the right policy. If neither the disease nor the treatment has severe consequences then what you do doesn't matter.
But what if the potential disease could be fatal but administrating the treatment could be fatal if the person is not sick (due to some required process that is expected to interact with the disease)? Perhaps waiting for more definitive answer is a better option. What if it is a situation in between in a complex probability function?

Just something to chew on about.

In order to deal with a disease, there is like a 2 steps: first diagnosis, and afterwards treatment.
The diagnosis needs some clues in order to get it. The default position of the diagnosis is "healthy" until evidence says the opposite: the only exemption is the screening. You are not allowed to screen for rare diseases -specially with cute rainbow diarrhoea - Also, it is seldom allowed to remove the appendix whether diarrhoea is present; since it a special rare diagnosis, carcinoid tumo(u)r in the appendix, is required before the surgical procedure is done.

For treatment -the second step-, you ALWAYS NEED EVIDENCE in order to perform it accodingly to the diagnosis (as you saw previously).

Treatment can be or not fatal, however evidence that support it is needed, since whether the patient gets hurt or die, the doctor is responsible if there is no indication for use it.

For instance if a patient is unable to breath and we detect "water in the lungs", giving morphine is OK, but giving it just 4 fun is wrong: why? because it make lead to addiction or death ---If a patient has a life-threatening condition and receive no treatment or the person uses morfine without any indication can cause the doctor serious legal problems (as it happened to the Michael Jackson's doc). If the patient receives treatment (the one given in the right moment and supported by evidence) and he/she dies then there is no problem, just bad luck and the doctor does not have any problem, since he/she is fulfilling his/her duty.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

My example was intendend to simply point out the difference of atitute in regards to events that are plausible to happen (in regards to historical experience) in contrast to those that are not, and then added the complication of the likelyhood of the event vs the consequences of any given action in case of failure or sucess. What is best to assume on the absence of information is not a simple equation as many people tend to think.