The Null Hypothesis

[Purple Rabbit]

The god hypothesis is a null hypothesis that has been around for at least 10.000 years (probably much longer) and it certainly deserves a prize for stickyness and morphing capabilities (sounds a lot nicer than its resemblance to rubberlike features, but boils down to the same). The reason for this stickyness being that the god hypothesis is not subjected to evidence based research but to the null hypothesis of epistemic methodology: belief. Nowadays every falsifiable aspect of god that ever used to be part of religious dogma has been erased.

Yes, gods do have their own evolutionary process, only gods with unfalsifiable definition have survived, it's called 'survival of the fuzziest'.

[Rhizomorph13]

The agenda is to find a non-technical and easily understandable way for the average person to grasp the "null hypothesis" methodology, using an analogy from common experience that could also perhaps illustrate the value of it. But then again, I sort of alluded to this in my original post.

I would love to know what reason I have given you to attribute ulterior motives to me. I will not, however, hold my breath.

Arcanus,

It is the forum in which you are posting and the fact that you are a theist that leads me to think that you want more than just a rousing conversation about the null hypothesis. If this were a statistics forum then I would not smell agenda.

Perhaps I was unnecessarily provocative in my post but it was a slow day on the forums and I was bored. I meant what I said; I really was waiting for a point to emerge beyond just deffinition of a statistics term.

Oh, well, fine! Be that way! Take your toys and go home if you don't want to play anymore!

Ok, I guess I heard hoofbeats and thought Zebras when I should have thought Horsies.

Rhizo

[LEDO]

The Flying Spaggetti Monster would be a satire on the null hypothesis. I am not too keen on the idea myself. There is "evidence" for the existance of god in the philosophical arguments of "first cause" and "design/designer." Theists attempt to push what I see as philosophical arguments into the realm of scientific arguments. Because of the null hypothesis, it would place the burden of proof of such philosophical arguments into the court of the theist.

This is an easy way out for atheists and leads to mental laziness.

[Kyuuketsuki]

the evidence did not allow us to reject the idea that Smith is innocent, (ii) but nothing proved the idea that he is innocent either.

Smith is assumed to be innocent until otherwise demonstrated ... I don't see a problem with that and I have no idea what that has to do with any hypothesis.

Are you trying to say that a given god is assumed to exist until proven otherwise or, as it is typically assume in our camp, that there are no gods until specifically demonstrated?

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

Actually, the verdict given is "not guilty", not "innocent".

http://www.adsense2.com/duvall/innocent.html

I attempt to hammer home, relentlessly, that the jury's job has very little to do with the concept of "innocence." Its job is not a bipolar one of convicting the guilty and vindicating the innocent. It is one of analyzing what evidence the state has presented and determining whether it is enough to satisfy the jury that there is no reason to doubt the defendant's guilt.

[LEDO]

Actually, the verdict given is "not guilty", not "innocent".

http://www.adsense2.com/duvall/innocent.html

I attempt to hammer home, relentlessly, that the jury's job has very little to do with the concept of "innocence." Its job is not a bipolar one of convicting the guilty and vindicating the innocent. It is one of analyzing what evidence the state has presented and determining whether it is enough to satisfy the jury that there is no reason to doubt the defendant's guilt.

Yes, and what the jury decides is immaterial to actual guilt or innocence. Just like the truth exists no matter what we think or believe we "prove."

[Pippy]

Hey,

Thank you again Arcanus, for another interesting point. I too think it is a very good analogy of the 'null' principle you are discussing. I also like your clarity on properties of analogies, as a bit of a poet I am a sucker for intelligent use of literary tools. The presumption of innocence is kind of a side-track though? If I am seeing it right the most important part is about the null hypotheses and alternate hypotheses, their relationship, and their lack of 'scientific verifiability'. That the 'debate' over Smith's 'innocence' is not a yes/no situation, but admittedly only our best approximation with room for error.

I like what this says about the god argument. It seems again you have put something I tried to express and failed to have clarity in a very clear light. I did and do not agree that the burden of proof is automatically on theists. I do think that to make a claim and make no attempt to show it as true or rational is a little bit shallow. That in mind, I think that stating there is no god is a claim, just as dis-belief takes a leap of faith. I think the burden of proof, for what little it is worth, is on either all of us, or none of us.

May be that is what LEDO said? I also agree with you LEDO, that the argument about god exists in the realm of theory, idea, and 'don't have all of the information yet'. That this argument can't be held to strict 'scientific' standards. That there is no 'evidence' we can share, as it is all interpreted differently. Sometimes we interpret into opposites. Like EvF's sig, I think I get something completely different from it than he means...

Anyways,
Thank you for sharing that Arcanus, it was a pleasure to read.
The,
-Pip

[Kyuuketsuki]

I did and do not agree that the burden of proof is automatically on theists.

Yes it is because theists are advancing a claim without evidence:

• A claim that does not FIT with currently accepted explanations
  
• A claim that cannot be considered unique or special because there are multiple god claims (claims that you reject in favour of your particular flavour god)
  
• A claim which, if accepted as valid, causes more problems for science, for reason, than it solves

So you raise an EXTRAORDINARY claim and as such the burden of proof DOES rest on YOU (on the theist).

Kyu

[Pippy]

Hey,

But even the extraordinar-ity of my claim is interpretative. You think my claim of knowing god is crazy, it makes no sense to you why someone would think like that... But as much so, I think it crazy that there are people out there who do not see the god that too myself is undeniable. So we can't really say who is crazy, and who is right in that case. And, as I've stated, I care very, very little for what's 'currently acceptable', because there are a lot of current ideas I find unacceptable.

This is old hat, we've already had this conversation... We just get different answers from things. You see 'multiple god claims' as clear evidence of a complete lack of god, whereas I see it as evidence of a failed referencing of a real thing.

Oh yeah, now is when I say 'I don't think the argument over the existence of god can be held to the same forensic standard of fact as other scientific things and processes, as it is nothing more than ideas and theories now. Then (this is just to save time) you accuse me of 'special pleading', another little gem of Dawkins. That my argument is refuted by the fact that I can't expound that certain standards cannot be held over certain other things, unless of course what I say is true. You can skip whether or not what I say is correct, and just argue that I cannot say that. The only thing that makes it possibly not 'pleading' is that it may be accurate, that god cannot be measured and photographed...

I apologize about going on and on... I do appreciate your input, and look forward to your response.
Thank you,
-Pip

PS I think I keep writing to you on all the threads this morning... Just start a new one called 'Leave me alone Pippy', it will save time. I don't use emoticons, but if I did, I would use one now.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Hey, ...

What's really incredible about your argument is that it doesn't deal with the points I made at all, it just comes across as I believe because I want to believe so yeah ... I'm improvised! Who wouldn't be?

Kyu