Quote:
Originally Posted by Male30Dan
I could say the same thing about the non-independent theory - "there is insufficient evidence to abandon it. That only means that, until there is sufficient evidence against it, it is the soundest approach..."
Why can I say that? Because both theories are NOT 100%. You can side with either theory and in your head consider IT the right choice, say what you said above, cross your arms, say HMPFF, and think you're right. So, yeah, I do get it, you arrogant prick.
|
I'll try this one more time.
Null hypothesis:
Quote:
|
A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.
|
Basically, I propose we start with no difference until hard evidence proves otherwise, simply because that is standard procedure. You, on the other hand, propose there must be a difference, because you... really insist upon it. With a 10% number you pulled out of your butthole.