Editing 892: Null Hypothesis
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
β | This comic (and the title text) | + | This comic (and the title text) are based on a misunderstanding. The {{w|null hypothesis}} is the hypothesis in a statistical analysis that indicates that the effect investigated by the analysis does ''not'' occur, i.e. 'null' as in zero effect. For example, the null hypothesis for a study about cell phones and cancer risk might be "Cell phones have no effect on cancer risk." The ''alternative hypothesis,'' by contrast, is the one under investigation - in this case, probably "Cell phones affect the risk of cancer." |
After conducting a study, we can then make a judgment based on our data. There are statistical models for measuring the probability that a certain result occurred by random chance, even though in reality there is no correlation. If this probability is low enough (usually meaning it's below a certain threshold we set when we design the experiment, such as 5% or 1%), we ''reject'' the null hypothesis, in this case saying that cell phones ''do'' increase cancer risk. Otherwise, we ''fail to reject'' the null hypothesis, as we have insufficient evidence to conclusively state that cell phones increase cancer risk. This is how almost all scientific experiments, from high school biology classes to CERN, draw their conclusions. | After conducting a study, we can then make a judgment based on our data. There are statistical models for measuring the probability that a certain result occurred by random chance, even though in reality there is no correlation. If this probability is low enough (usually meaning it's below a certain threshold we set when we design the experiment, such as 5% or 1%), we ''reject'' the null hypothesis, in this case saying that cell phones ''do'' increase cancer risk. Otherwise, we ''fail to reject'' the null hypothesis, as we have insufficient evidence to conclusively state that cell phones increase cancer risk. This is how almost all scientific experiments, from high school biology classes to CERN, draw their conclusions. |