(January 21, 2010 at 9:25 am)leo-rcc Wrote: If I were a strong atheist I would argue that the null hypothesis would be that something does not exist until evidence that something does exist comes along. I would feel no need to actively look for evidence against a thing to claim its non existence.

leo-rcc just out of interest have you ever had any formal training in the sciences, logic or philosophy? The clumsy way you have phrased that suggests its been a while since you've done undergraduate level mathematics, or you have never had any formal training at university level (unless you learn about the null hypothesis at highschool or some other post-secondary institution). Just curious that's all.

(January 21, 2010 at 10:03 am)FaithvsFact Wrote: leo-rcc just out of interest have you ever had any formal training in the sciences, logic or philosophy? The clumsy way you have phrased that suggests its been a while since you've done undergraduate level mathematics, or you have never had any formal training at university level (unless you learn about the null hypothesis at highschool or some other post-secondary institution). Just curious that's all.

No, your point being? Argue against the point, not the phrasing.

(January 21, 2010 at 10:11 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

(January 21, 2010 at 10:03 am)FaithvsFact Wrote: leo-rcc just out of interest have you ever had any formal training in the sciences, logic or philosophy? The clumsy way you have phrased that suggests its been a while since you've done undergraduate level mathematics, or you have never had any formal training at university level (unless you learn about the null hypothesis at highschool or some other post-secondary institution). Just curious that's all.

No, your point being? Either argue against my phrasing or stfu.

We studied the null hypothesis as a concept in our undergraduate mathematics units at uni (i'm an engineer) and its usage is primarily to do with studying statistics in the context of a defined experiment. The way you have applied it here shows you do not understand that it has a very specific connotation with studying statistics. Using the null hypothesis in your statement therefore does not make sense. Please state what you really mean to say in language that is your own.

No, this is it. I am not going to go into a semantic discussion with you, either you get the point or you don't.

(January 21, 2010 at 10:27 am)leo-rcc Wrote: No, this is it. I am not going to go into a semantic discussion with you, either you get the point or you don't.

Its not about semantics. You've totally used the definition of the word incorrectly to the point where your sentence does not make sense. I don't know if you wanted to make it sound fancier than what you were really trying to say but if you were trying to be more erudite about it, you did not succeed. What are you really trying to say? I can't put it more bluntly than that!

I think what leo meant by a "null hypothesis" is a "default position". The default position should be non-existence, but that is a very different thing to claiming something doesn't exist. To all extensive purposes, God doesn't exist since the evidence hasn't in any way been conclusive. However, this doesn't mean that evidence won't come along that proves God's existence, or that God is in a state of "non-existence" just because we haven't got the evidence yet.

(January 21, 2010 at 10:11 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

(January 21, 2010 at 10:03 am)FaithvsFact Wrote: leo-rcc just out of interest have you ever had any formal training in the sciences, logic or philosophy? The clumsy way you have phrased that suggests its been a while since you've done undergraduate level mathematics, or you have never had any formal training at university level (unless you learn about the null hypothesis at highschool or some other post-secondary institution). Just curious that's all.

No, your point being? Argue against the point, not the phrasing.

Hey you posted saying "stfu" (look at my reply which quotes you) but here you have posted "argue against the point, not the phrasing". What gives? Did you have a change of heart about what you posted but realised you hit the button too early? Why did you change? Anyway someone else has answered on your behalf.

No, I only edited my post because stfu was a bit too harsh in this case. As for using "null hypothesis" as opposed to Adrian's explanation of "Default hypothesis". It is my wording, I would use null hypothesis every single time something like this would come up. And I am not about to change that.

To answer your questions to me FvF I do consider myself to be a strong atheist. I do not have faith in my contention that god exist, I am convinced that god does not exist due to the lack of evidence. I do not think it is my job to prove a negative, but I base myself on the evidence we have available for the existence of god. I personally don't see god anywhere in our natural world of order and chaos combined. Where do most people claim to see god? In visions, dreams, and revelations whether that be some experience of religious ecstasy or read it in a book claiming divine inspiration is irrelevant. None of these methods of detecting god are valid since they are completely subjective to the person claiming the experience, to the rest of us they are meaningless and require our faith in the word of the revealer.

Conveniently, as in all mythological creatures god exist outside of the natural realm according to his believers. Outside the reach of science and untestable in any way.

(January 21, 2010 at 10:53 am)leo-rcc Wrote: No, I only edited my post because stfu was a bit too harsh in this case. As for using "null hypothesis" as opposed to Adrian's explanation of "Default hypothesis". It is my wording, I would use null hypothesis every single time something like this would come up. And I am not about to change that.

For the sake of clarification (which I believe was the only thing FaithvsFact was after), by "null hypothesis" you do mean "default position" right?

I can understand where FaithvsFact is coming from, as I never use the phrase "null hypothesis" for anything other than statistics. If he is an engineer as he claims, it is not surprising he was confused by your wording.

It isn't so much semantics, but when someone has used a word in a context where it is not usually placed, clarification is needed.