Incorrect and frankly quite the opposite.In climate science, the null hypothesis is that human emissions have no bearing on climate change.
-
In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
Why science is never settled
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Why science is never settled
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4779
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2199 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
Re: Why science is never settled
I disagree. See the following explanations:ant wrote:Incorrect and frankly quite the opposite.In climate science, the null hypothesis is that human emissions have no bearing on climate change.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Null_hypothesisThe following cases are examples where sufficient evidence has been presented and the null hypothesis can be rejected.
Climate change: that human influence has not changed Earth's climate.
Evolution: that species are not changed by natural selection to fit an ecological niche.
Given that the null hypothesis has been rejected it now falls to those who would wish to deny the evidence for global warming or evolution to present their counterarguments. The burden of proof is on them. The prior alternative hypothesis becomes the next default null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.
The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.
https://explorable.com/null-hypothesisExamples of the Null Hypothesis
A researcher may postulate a hypothesis:
H1: Tomato plants exhibit a higher rate of growth when planted in compost rather than in soil.
And a null hypothesis:
H0: Tomato plants do not exhibit a higher rate of growth when planted in compost rather than soil.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_s ... f/null.htmWhy the Null Hypothesis (H0)?
When we pose a research question, we want to know whether the outcome is due to the treatment (independent variable) or due to chance (in which case our treatment is probably not effective). For example, the claim that tutoring improves math performance generally does not predict exactly how much improvement. Each level of improvement has a different probability associated with it, and it would take a long time and a great deal of effort to specify the probability of each of the possible outcomes that would support our research hypothesis.
On the other hand, the null hypothesis is straightforward -- what is the probability that our treated and untreated samples are from the same population (that the treatment or predictor has no effect)? There is only one set of statistical probabilities -- calculation of chance effects. Instead of directly testing H1, we test H0. If we can reject H0, (and extraneous factors are under control), we can accept H1. To put it another way, the fate of the research hypothesis depends upon what happens to H0.
Here are some research or alternative hypotheses (testable statements)
Exercise leads to weight loss
Exposure to classical music increases IQ score
Extroverts are healthier than introverts
Sensitivity training reduces racial bias
The inferential statistics do not directly address the testable statement (research hypothesis). They address the null hypothesis. Statistically, we test "not." Here are the null hypotheses:
Exercise is unrelated to weight loss.
Exposure to classical music has no effect on IQ score.
Extrovert and introverts are equally healthy.
People exposed to sensitivity training are no more tolerant than those not exposed to sensitivity training.
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Why science is never settled
Yeah. I've read all that, Geo and an aware of what the alleged cc null hypothesis is.
I dismise wikipedias entries on contraversial sociopolitical issues, particular on issues like climate change.
They simply are not a reliable objective source of information."Rational Wiki" especially so.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 081415.php
The current assumed as fact hypothesis is "climate change is likely due to anthropogenic causes" is not up for nullification, or even can be nullified at this point in time.
"Is likely" are the key words.
The unstated hypothesis is not subjected to falsification by the political/scientific consensus.
Instead it is constantly reaffirmed by models that are poor at matching observation and wrose at prediction.
Do I not agree the climate is changing and we are currently experiencing a warming trend?
No.
The climate change blowhards are bandwagoning it all.
They dont understand the complexity of the climate because no one does.
I dismise wikipedias entries on contraversial sociopolitical issues, particular on issues like climate change.
They simply are not a reliable objective source of information."Rational Wiki" especially so.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 081415.php
The current assumed as fact hypothesis is "climate change is likely due to anthropogenic causes" is not up for nullification, or even can be nullified at this point in time.
"Is likely" are the key words.
The unstated hypothesis is not subjected to falsification by the political/scientific consensus.
Instead it is constantly reaffirmed by models that are poor at matching observation and wrose at prediction.
Do I not agree the climate is changing and we are currently experiencing a warming trend?
No.
The climate change blowhards are bandwagoning it all.
They dont understand the complexity of the climate because no one does.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Why science is never settled
Now you no longer believe the climate is changing? That because of the complexity of the system, we can't come to conclusions?Do I not agree the climate is changing and we are currently experiencing a warming trend?
No.
The climate change blowhards are bandwagoning it all.
They dont understand the complexity of the climate because no one does.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4779
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2199 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
Re: Why science is never settled
Right, okay, but I was merely discussing what a null hypothesis would look like for climate change and bottom line is I was right. It sort of relates to the article, which talks about null hypotheses.ant wrote:Yeah. I've read all that, Geo and an aware of what the alleged cc null hypothesis is.
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Why science is never settled
If you reversed the null hypothesis the scientific feedback would very likely be different and contrary to the current paradigm consensus.geo wrote:Right, okay, but I was merely discussing what a null hypothesis would look like for climate change and bottom line is I was right. It sort of relates to the article, which talks about null hypotheses.ant wrote:Yeah. I've read all that, Geo and an aware of what the alleged cc null hypothesis is.
Reason - the data can easily be interpreted in favor of a contrarian NH.
So you being "right" really says nothing at all.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Why science is never settled
Here's one good example of why science is never settled - because of gross stupidity and misconduct:
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/how-one- ... of-a-studyA much more serious problem, however, is that there is bad data in the sample. Most consequentially, there is a 32,757-year-old, a veritable paleo-participant. (Data here.)
There are also seven minors, including a 5-year-old and two 14-year-olds, two 15-year-olds, and two others.
They were alerted to the presence of the minors and the paleo-participant over a year ago, and did nothing.
This would be a serious problem in any context. We cannot have minors or paleo-participants in our data, in the data we use for analyses, claims, and journal articles. It's even more serious given that the authors analyzed the age variable, and reported its effects. They state in their paper:
--- "Age turned out not to correlate with any of the indicator variables."
This is grossly false..,