Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
This is for the Tampon, care to use a null hypothesis? That is where you take a position that is opposite what you believe and try to prove that it's true.
So prove to me (and to us) that what I put forth was, and still is, wrong. Show us the evidence that absolutely disproves me. You know you can't which means that my theory (minus the bullshit that you say that I said) is just as valid as any other theory based on what we know so far. Surprising how someone like you can believe so strongly in global warming but not this.
|
That's not the null hypothesis, dipshit.
Here is the null hypothesis:
"In
statistical inference on observational data, the
null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena.
[1] Rejecting or disproving the null
hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is
capable of being proven false."
So, in essence, you assume there is no relation between two things and then try to falsify the assumption (e.g., to demonstrate that there is a relationship between smoking and lung cancer, you first assume that there is NO such relationship - that the rate of lung cancer among smokers is the same as the rate of lung cancer for non-smokers). When repeated experiments or measurements indicate that smokers DO have higher rates of lung cancer, then you conclude that your assumption of NO relationship is false and that there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.
So, what the fuck does that have to do with your idiotic theory about hijacking and hiding the plane? In particular, how do you conduct repeated experiments to falsify your assumption. We are talking about a singular event that happened in the past and about which we have no knowledge. So how do we repeat the event if we don't know even know what happened?
What you are really asking is for us to prove your idea is not true. Stated differently, you are asking us to prove a negative. That is logically impossible (there can always be one thing you missed). Which is why morons like you always try to force others to prove something didn't happen - prove the mafia didn't kill Kennedy, prove that NASA didn't stage the Apollo landings, etc.
What you are forgetting is that the burden of proof is always on the moronic cretin that advances a ludicrous idea.
So YOU prove that the Malaysian air liner is hiding behind potted plants and camo netting somewhere in the Pacific Ocean or Asia.
Or shut up.
