The concept of null and alternate hypothesis do not arise until hypotheses are to be tested. Just trying to emphasize that what I hold on to is to be tested and found wanting, it can easily be rejected. You can as well tell those that are still holding own to the theory of flat earth to demand more from their reasoning. Reasoning can be subjective without evidence and the only way to prove it is to provide evidences against such reasoning. I do not believe there is a right or wrong opinion to this issue unless we want to continue in endless argument which could lead to bandying of insults. I totally respect your view
RE: Evolution vs Creation: The dilemma of religious scientists
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Evolution vs Creation: The dilemma of religious scientists
Yep, let's not go to that :) Just one final comment on something you wrote just now:
Yes, and the null hypothesis is that we reject the claim until it has been proven with evidence. The whole point of the null hypothesis is not to hold unsubstantiated beliefs like this one. That's why I find it frustrating that you would talk about the null hypothesis 100% backwards like that.
I respect your view too, but my honest opinion is that you are objectively not making a sound point here and are not using some of the terms properly.
Cheers! :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit