That is not how the null hypothesis works. The null hypothesis is used to not accept unvalidated hypotheses as true, not to pick something at random and to stick with it until proven otherwise.
What does mutual exclusivity have to do with this? There are whole host of alternative hypotheses with zero evidence going for them that can be inserted in everything that you are saying in place of creationism. Believing any of them is unreasonable until you have evidence to support them. Not every wacky hypothesis out there can be immediately disproved, but this doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe it. Can you disprove that the forces we are seeing are not the result of tiny green unicorns living inside elementary particles and their farts? If you can't disprove it, it doesn't mean it's true or that it is reasonable to believe it and the null hypothesis means that you should not believe it until it is proven, not the opposite. Your creationism at this stage is just as scientific as the farting unicorns.
You might want to brush up on the scientific method and the null hypothesis as some of your concepts about both are clearly shaky even from the perspective of a layman as myself. As a scientists, I think you should demand more from your own reasoning.
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
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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