In science, the null hypothesis is the opposition to whatever is being tested. For example, when we refer to "dark energy" we are talking about a force that scientists believe is responsible for keeping the galaxies from tearing themselves apart. The null hypothesis then is that without this energy or matter, the galaxies could not exist. This proposition (as demonstrated mathematically) is the only reason that scientists are trying to discover energy that they know nothing about.
Studies on intercessory prayer have determined that there is no significant difference between a person's health when others pray for them and when they don't. With no significant difference between them, the determination is that all results fit the null hypothesis. But this doesn't persuade the believers because they don't understand that demonstrating the null hypothesis with no discernable difference to observation, probably means it's correct.
There seems to be some confusion as to what a null hypothesis is. The null hypothesis for a statistical evaluation is not the definition of a null hypothesis, it is the null hypothesis for statistical evaluation. Just like the null hypothesis for dark matter only applies to dark matter. Please see this link for further information:
https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-null-hypothesis-10757
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Wouldn't the null hypothesis regarding dark matter simply be that Dark Matter has no effect at all. When the null hypothesis does the job, there's no reason to postulate any sort of alternative, or novel, hypothesis; there's simply no merit to it.
My understanding is that science does not say intercessory prayer does not work. It simply states there is no evidence supporting the idea that it does work. The null hypothesis is not an opposition but a simple rejection of the hypothesis. We can reject the hypothesis until it is proved to be true. The null hypothesis says nothing about any other hypothesis or that the original asserted hypothesis is false.
Null hypothesis
The null hypothesis is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.
Am I missing something?
The null hypothesis in statistical evaluation is a bit different.
https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-null-hypothesis-10757
The null hypothesis is that prayer makes no difference and observations fit this hypothesis.
Your Article says the exact same thing.
"One, the “null hypothesis”, is the reference or baseline hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is supported, nothing unusual is going on; the factor under investigation has no explanatory power; " Null Hypothesis - nothing happens and the original hypothesis is not proved.
The article's example seems to get this wrong. What it is actually saying is.....
Hypothesis 1: eating apples does improve sleep quality
Hypothesis 2: eating apples does not improve sleep quality.
Null Hypothesis: Apples have no effect on sleep quality.
Apples do not improve sleep quality is an assertion - a separate and distinct hypothesis. Not a null-hypothesis. Look at the definition of NULL: having no value; in other words null is zero, I think the author has simply made an error. Seems miss-worded to me.
Cognostic,
The point is to supply a null hypothesis for what you believe. What is it you are not understanding? Do you not grasp the scientific method? Do you need help? Why did you have to edit your original post?
Regarding your example,
Hypothesis 2: eating apples does not improve sleep quality.
Null Hypothesis: Apples have no effect on sleep quality.
These two are exactly the same in regards to the experiment and how to prove or disprove the subject. Changing the words doesn't change the premise.
They are not alike. The result is similar but not the same.
It seems very similar to the God hypothesis.
1. Hypothesis, God exists. (Eating apples effects sleep)
2. Null Hypothesis: No reason to believe god exists. (There is no effect.)
3. Opposite Hypothesis: God does not exist. (Eating apples does not effect sleep)
Both 1 and 3 require evidence. 2. is the null hypothesis, it is reached when there is no effect. This is the way I am seeing the issue.
I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying this is the way I am seeing the problem. There seems to be a language problem. Perhaps someone can point me in the right direction. Hypothesis 3 requires evidence of no effect. Minus the evidence we have the "Null Hypothesis." What that evidence would be, I have no idea. It sure would not be sugar levels in the body.
I see 3 as an assertion. A separate hypothesis requiring evidence because of the way it is worded. It is an assertion. It is a separate hypothesis.
Anyone else out there/ I'm stuck. Explain how 3 is not a separate hypothesis needing evidence. How is it not the same as the God claim?
I do not see these two as saying the same thing at all.
2: Eating apples does not improve sleep quality. (Assertion requiring evidence)
Null Hypothesis: Apples have no effect on sleep quality. (Null Hypothesis)
A hypothesis is a proposition. I propose that Blue Fairies make the sky blue. The null hypothesis is that Blue Fairies don't make the sky blue. The null hypothesis isn't, "Blue Fairies don't exist." That isn't a hypothesis I'm testing.
When you say a hypothesis is "God exists" you have missed the point entirely. I can't do anything with that hypothesis. What do you base it on? What does your god do? What is the next step in testing this proposition?
A proposition says that something happens, and this is the reason for it. "Something exists" is not a proposition. THAT is an assertion.
Kataclismic's picture
A hypothesis is a proposition
Agreed. "Blue fairies don't exist" is a position. "Blue fairies exist," is a position. The Null Hypothesis is (There is no evidence blue fairies do not exist.) and (There is no evidence blue fairies exist) respectively.
Blue fairies make sky blue, Is a hypothesis. (The null hypothesis would be a nullification of the claim. There is no evidence that blue fairies make sky blue. The original hypothesis is not supported.)
"Blue fairies don't make the sky blue" is an assertion. A separate hypothesis. You must prove it. Prove that blue fairies do not make the sky blue. (The null hypothesis would be a rejection of the hypothesis. (The original hypothesis is not supported. There is no evidence that blue fairies do not make the sky blue.)
The null hypothesis is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no ...
I am not getting how making the assertion that "Blue fairies don't make the sky blue" is not a separate assertion. It is not the default position. The default position is (null - we don't know. It is not an opposite position.)
I will be stuck on this for a while. I'm doing some reading but my position seems to be supported by what I am reading. (Selective Perception perhaps.)
Anyone else want to weigh in? Perhaps someone can explain it differently?
We can consider the existence of god to be a scientific hypothesis and look for the empirical evidence that would follow. Many of the attributes associated with the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God have specific consequences that can be tested empirically. Such a God is supposed to play a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. As a result, evidence for him should be readily detectable by scientific means.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-god-hypothesis_b_13553...
God hypothesis
The hypothesis that God exists, seen as something able to be analyzed by a scientific approach rather than accepted by faith.
Not sure why you have a problem with this.
From your link:
"If a properly controlled experiment were to come up with an observation that cannot be explained by natural means, then science would have to take seriously the possibility of a world beyond matter. "
So we need an observation? Like we can't just say it exists? Isn't that what I've been saying?
There is absolutely no way for me to make you understand this but I'll give it one last shot:
If I want to pose the proposition that Blue Fairies exist then it is a waste of my time. I can say all day long that Blue Fairies exist and it is nothing but an assertion. However, if I say that something happens because Blue Fairies cause it to happen that is a proposition that we can test. The claim that something exists is not testable, just like the claim that something doesn't exist as a counterproposal isn't testable either. That is my point. Your beliefs have no basis in logic or reasoning, much like your argument here.
If I pose the proposition that Blue Fairies do something and your position is that Blue Fairies don't exist, that is still just an assertion. It doesn't touch on the proposition that I made. To state that an untestable assertion is a null proposition means that you have no idea what you are talking about.
You're stuck on this "null" meaning nothing. It doesn't mean "no value" in this instance, it means the opposite or contradictory value of what we have proposed. It cancels it out. It must apply to our proposition, not make an assertion that has no value.
I found this on line and it is an excellent example IMO of the Null Hypothesis. Lets agree to use this as the groundwork for discussion. It seems to use your language but my position. IMO
http://nova.wpunj.edu/gaydoshl/Hypothesis%20Analogy%202.pdf
The null hypothesis is the logical opposite of the research hypothesis.
It is formulated such that if the research hypothesis is valid, the null hypothesis cannot be valid. If the null hypothesis is valid, the research hypothesis cannot be valid. The 2 formulations are mutually exclusive, that is, they cannot both be true at the same time. This is analogous to the possible verdicts available to a jury in a criminal trial. If a defendant in a criminal trial is found guilty, he/she cannot also be not guilty. ,,,, One formulation precludes the other..
A man can not be guilty and not guilty at the same time. (I agree. This is what I am saying.)
What I am seeing you say is... "The man is not guilty so he is innocent." The opposite of guilt is innocent. This is not the null hypothesis but a separate hypothesis that needs testing. The null hypothesis states only that the man is not guilty. He may or may not be innocent. (I hear you saying "innocent" when you state the opposite.)
OKAY BACK to The beginning:
HYPOTHESIS: Blue Fairies make the sky blue.
NULL HYPOTHESIS: The null hypothesis is that Blue Fairies don't make the sky blue. (Innocent, they have nothing to do with it.)
MY VERSION / Null Hypothesis: Ends up being the same as yours now. FUCK ME!
AND I HAVE WORKED MYSELF INTO A CORNER ON THIS ONE BECAUSE e fairies have no effect on the sky.I CAN THINK OF NO OTHER WAY OF STATING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS.
FOR SOME REASON I REALLY HATE THE USE OF THE WORD "OPPOSITE."
I SEE IT IS BEING USED AND SEE IT AS ADDRESSING MORE THAN ONE PRONG OF A POSITION AT THE SAME TIME. (guilt vs innocence) I HAVE WORKED MYSELF INTO A HOLE AND I GUESS I NEED TO GO WATCH A FEW MORE VIDEOS OR READ A BIT MORE. THERE IS JUST SOMETHING IN THIS IDEA OF OPPOSITE, I AM NOT GRASPING.
THANKS FOR THE INTERACTION - I AM OFF TO THE BOOKS.
DUP:
As emotional creatures, we have great difficulty in sustaining purely logical disciplines. This is why these disciplines are created, analyzed, built-upon and then analyzed again. It is by definition a constant learning process, but you must be willing to learn.
Very interesting chat, Cognostic. Maybe next time we can tackle string-theory. :D
Sounds right cog. Are you guys talking about that US national prayer group initiated and funded study, designed to prove prayer to help outcomes of heart patients...thats an old study...if I remember it clearly had negative results recorded for the patients...that's pretty damning right there. I also love the fact that the christian prayer group that funded it, had to eat the results...must have tasted pretty bad.
The study was a double blind clinical trial of recovering heart patients after surgery. Some were prayed for and some not, some new they were being prayed for and others didn't. There was no discernible difference in recovery between those prayed fro and those not prayed fro, and what;s more the group who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse. The conclusions was that the stress of knowing and wanting to show positive results hampered their recovery.
As you say it is a slam dunk as far as the claim intercessory works, but of course the data and evidence would only be acknowledged as valid if it had given positive result, then we'd never hear the end of it.
Just as theists are content to deny science when it suits, but if scientific evidence for their superstitious beliefs was ever validated you can bet they'd be praising that science alright.
That is what I assumed the OP was discussing. NOTE: The study focused on intercessory prayer. It says nothing about all other forms of prayer. There is evidence for prayer actually working in the same way positive self affirmation works. "God give me strength to get through this (- insert your difficult time here -)."
In psychology "I have the strength to deal with this." "I can do it!" These are the messages coaches give teams prior to the football game and they can be highly motivational.
I, of course, assert that they work based on their psychological and motivational value and not based on the existence of any God or internal spiritual Woo Woo.
I tend to caution myself when discussing prayer. I think it is useless for having any kind of effect on the world around us. At the same time, I recognize it can be highly motivational.
Does it seem like these studies pre suppose that God is required to answer all prayer? What kind of free will or personhood could such a God possess.
@ AJ777
FYI: That prayer study was funded by the Templeton Foundation. A religion based funding and granting organization similar to and in opposition to the National Science Foundation. The Templeton Foundation only funds those "propositions" that may promote the proof of religion.
Your pouty post insinuates that you think the study was funded to disprove religion. Actually, as said, the Templeton Foundation funded the study and had to eat a huge helping of crow.
Well, your Sky Faerie says it answers all prayer. That study done by a Christian group proved prayer does not work. The only time prayer has been found to work is when a person prays for themselves. And that was proven to be as effective as a person who simply meditates with the thought of recovering well.
Prayer is like compulsive gambling. You just don't talk about the losses. From a graphic seen in the Gallery.
rmfr
EDIT: Here is an interesting list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer
“your Sky Faerie says it answers all prayer”
Jesus prayed to not have to be crucified. Gods answer was to allow Him to be crucified. If Jesus did not have all his prayers answered why should I expect all mine to be answered?
Jesus prayed to himself? lol
AJ777,
Why do you believe in that liar Jesus?
John 14:12-14 (NKJV) = 12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it."
@AJ777
"Jesus prayed to not have to be crucified. Gods answer was to allow Him to be crucified. If Jesus did not have all his prayers answered why should I expect all mine to be answered?"
You have set a low bar for your expectations. Your god treats you like shit.
In Christianity the Bible reveals there are three persons the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Godhead. This is the trinity. Jesus prayed to His Father. Only in Christianity does this trinity exist.
BULLSHIT: The bible never reveals Father, Son and Holy Spirit "Within a Godhead." This is a completely dishonest assertion. The Trinity is NOT MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.
The Holy Trinity Exists in Many faiths.
The three major Hindu Gods are Brahma, Vishnu and Siva - Creator, Sustenance and Destroyer.
Egyptian Trinity of a transcendental god Amun that also manifests as Ra and Ptah.
Greek Trinity consisting of Zeus (the God), Hera (the Goddess) and Hercules (their son)
Babylonian holy Trinity consisting of Ninki (later became Ishtar) the mother, Enki (later became Namakh) the father, and Marduk the son.
The three sacred Vedic energy manifestations – Tamas (inertia, darkness, destruction), Rajas (preservation, movement, dynamic), and Satvas (creation, existence, order, purity)
Tao that manifests as Yin and Yang
The Christian Trinity is just one more in a long line of Dialectic Trinities. THERE IS NOTHING NEW IN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. It's root and firmly grounded in the pagan religions from which it sprang,
@ Cognostic
Actually the Greek Trinity is Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. Thought you'd like to know.
rmfr
"Many other areas had their own divine trinities. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon and Adonis. "
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/how-anci...
Not saying you are wrong.... just posting one of the links. It's under "Other." There was one more link I saw with the same order.
@ AJ777
Another lie. They are three separate individuals. At the beginning of the Bible they say things like, "Let US make man in OUR image." Clearly PLURALITY. You Christians actually worship three gods. It is not monotheistic. It was the early Christian church that re-wrote the Bible in an attempt to make it seem monotheistic. They failed miserably.
Although I can joke about the three of me with the "me, myself, and I" adage, I ALWAYS refer to myself in the SINGULAR pronouns. NEVER have I ever referred to myself as US, WE, or OUR. It is always me, myself, OR I.
rmfr
@AJ777
"In Christianity the Bible reveals there are three persons the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Godhead. This is the trinity. Jesus prayed to His Father. Only in Christianity does this trinity exist."
So this godhead exists?
So jesus is not dead?
jesus did not die for your sins.
@ AJ777
And, wrong again. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Trinitarianism was not the general belief viz:
"The terms we translate as “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas, Greek: trias) seem to have come into use only in the last two decades of the second century; but such usage doesn't reflect trinitarian belief. These late second and third century authors use such terms not to refer to the one God, but rather to refer to the plurality of the one God, together with his Son (on Word) and his Spirit. They profess a “trinity”, triad or threesome, but not a triune or tripersonal God. Nor did they consider these to be equally divine. A common strategy for defending monotheism in this period is to emphasize the unique divinity of the Father. Thus Origen (ca. 186-255),
The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit... (Origen, First, 33-4 [I.3]). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
It wasn't until Tertullian in the early 3rd Century CE that the term "Trinitas" was coined and even then the modern version of the Trinity which you espouse was not orthodox and enforced until the 4th Century CE see "Council of Constantinople".
Please be specific as to which sect of "christianity" you are referring to in your comments as there are wide divisions even now in the interpretation of such fundamentals of the religion.
You are sailing very close to the "No True Scotsman" in your comments,
Mind, I am very used to the ignorance of self confessed christians, especially when it comes to the origins of their own faith.
Is not acting on a prayer not an answer?
Pages