5255 pts ยท June 2, 2015
Comment my way up
hillary tryna use sex appeal to get at them young voters
when you stop dosing you get to experience a period of being even worse off than you were when you started. That much is chemistry. 5
This is not the case. Chemically you become dependent and eventually end up exactly where you were chemically before dosing started. Then, 4
not-so-long-term. The drugs are very dangerous and many doctors prescribe them as if it's healthy to have a long term drug prescription 3
dependence. You have to use the medication to get yourself into positive thinking habits or they will make you worse off in the 2
They are trying to point out an important and oft-overlooked aspect of psychopharmacology: the drugs help exactly as much as they create 1
so says my professor: there is an important logical distinction between testing H0=true and testing H0=false, something to do with method 4
H0=false is what is tested. 3
assume that Ha is true unless you've proven that H0 is not true. H0=true is an assumption that is never statistically tested. 2
You are hilariously wrong friend, I was JUST in a research statistics course 3 weeks ago. H0 is not assumed to be true, you just can't 1
given your sample. It's a test of "what chance would I have gotten my sample if H0 was true" not "is H0 true".
No, you never assume H0 is true because you aren't testing the truthfulness of H0, you're testing the probability that H0 would be true 1
and it is criminal to say no weiners in the ladies room!
You didn't miss too much, vanilla was the wild wild west, BC was meh and then WotLK was about as fun as vanilla, but without the chaos.
We're arguing the same point with one caveat: You never assume H0 is true, you either know it's false or you know it maybe isn't false.
2 "H0 is true". Just because we cannot determine that H0 is false does not mean that we CAN determine it is true.
It is not semantic nonsense, there is a very significant logical difference between "We are unable to prove H0 false" and 2
3 aka when Ha is presumed true.
2 conclusive in the case of rejection.
That may be true but you never "accept" a null hypothesis, you merely fail to reject it. Therefore Null hypothesis testing is only 1
Yes, that is null hypothesis testing, which has very specific applications that do not include debating speculation.
On what grounds should I assume one answer when there's no definitive evidence either way?
though many things can certainly help, like having access to the parameters of your tested population
Your semantics are more correct than mine but the original problem still exists; H0 testing is not usually conclusive enough by itself
2 you kinda run into a similar problem.
H0 test results are "rejected" (alt hyp is true), or "not rejected" which doesn't mean H0 is true, just that we aren't sure it's false so 2
3 any of the hypotheses.
2 evidenced as existent or nonexistent is foolish. Occams razor is for when you have evidence of multiple hypotheses, not no evidence for 2
Assumptions should only be made when required to come to a conclusion. Using occam's razor as an argument against something that is neither1
Do you have evidence that no such sentience exists?
hillary tryna use sex appeal to get at them young voters
when you stop dosing you get to experience a period of being even worse off than you were when you started. That much is chemistry. 5
This is not the case. Chemically you become dependent and eventually end up exactly where you were chemically before dosing started. Then, 4
not-so-long-term. The drugs are very dangerous and many doctors prescribe them as if it's healthy to have a long term drug prescription 3
dependence. You have to use the medication to get yourself into positive thinking habits or they will make you worse off in the 2
They are trying to point out an important and oft-overlooked aspect of psychopharmacology: the drugs help exactly as much as they create 1
so says my professor: there is an important logical distinction between testing H0=true and testing H0=false, something to do with method 4
H0=false is what is tested. 3
assume that Ha is true unless you've proven that H0 is not true. H0=true is an assumption that is never statistically tested. 2
You are hilariously wrong friend, I was JUST in a research statistics course 3 weeks ago. H0 is not assumed to be true, you just can't 1
given your sample. It's a test of "what chance would I have gotten my sample if H0 was true" not "is H0 true".
No, you never assume H0 is true because you aren't testing the truthfulness of H0, you're testing the probability that H0 would be true 1
and it is criminal to say no weiners in the ladies room!
You didn't miss too much, vanilla was the wild wild west, BC was meh and then WotLK was about as fun as vanilla, but without the chaos.
We're arguing the same point with one caveat: You never assume H0 is true, you either know it's false or you know it maybe isn't false.
2 "H0 is true". Just because we cannot determine that H0 is false does not mean that we CAN determine it is true.
It is not semantic nonsense, there is a very significant logical difference between "We are unable to prove H0 false" and 2
3 aka when Ha is presumed true.
2 conclusive in the case of rejection.
That may be true but you never "accept" a null hypothesis, you merely fail to reject it. Therefore Null hypothesis testing is only 1
Yes, that is null hypothesis testing, which has very specific applications that do not include debating speculation.
On what grounds should I assume one answer when there's no definitive evidence either way?
though many things can certainly help, like having access to the parameters of your tested population
Your semantics are more correct than mine but the original problem still exists; H0 testing is not usually conclusive enough by itself
2 you kinda run into a similar problem.
H0 test results are "rejected" (alt hyp is true), or "not rejected" which doesn't mean H0 is true, just that we aren't sure it's false so 2
3 any of the hypotheses.
2 evidenced as existent or nonexistent is foolish. Occams razor is for when you have evidence of multiple hypotheses, not no evidence for 2
Assumptions should only be made when required to come to a conclusion. Using occam's razor as an argument against something that is neither1
Do you have evidence that no such sentience exists?