Sentences with phrase «null hypothesis based»

There is another great example of falling into this logical trap of observing an event a priori, and then trying to assign a null hypothesis based on this observation.

This technique is to split the available record into two parts and formulate the null hypothesis based on the first part.

Standard frequentist tests of a null hypothesis based on a Gaussian observation are also unaffected by such a monotonic transformation.

Test / Experiment Data can only Accept or Reject a certain null hypothesis based on set criteria.

Not exact matches

Imagine, say, a bell - shaped curve based on the null hypothesis that climate change is not happening (and not having an impact on increasing extreme weather events), and there is this really long tail out to infinity; and supposing we get an off - the - charts category 7 hurricane in January, we still can not attribute it or its extra intensity or unusual seasonality to climate change, even if there is only a one in kazillion chance it might occur without climate change having an effect — that is, it is way out there in the very tiny tail of this null hypothesis curve that fades out into infinity — the tail that says, afterall, anything's possible.

The null hypothesis is always a reflection of our current understanding of how the world works based on the evidence we have managed to unearth so far.

«I particularly object to the testing of sharp null hypotheses when there is no plausible basis for believing the null is true.

We can not reject the null hypothesis of continuation of the simple pre-1988 trend based on evaluation of model performance through 2005.

Perhaps the real division needs to be to create a subject which is the application of climate science — to create clear (melted ice) between climate science which is based on the scientific methodology and the null hypothesis and «climate prediction» where the «best» predictions are made based on the balance of evidence but there is no pretence that these predictions have or even can be tested (except by comparison to what happens... which I have to point out isn't climate «science's» / forecasters strong card!)

The null hypothesis is always an alternative to a well defined hypothesis, and there should be a rational basis for choosing that particular hypothesis.

Similarly, «the climate has not changed in 1000 years» is a possible null hypothesis, but «climate change is caused by natural variation» is not, because it does not provide a basis for computing a probability distribution.

When he says that AGW should be the new null hypothesis, he means that unless skeptics can «prove» the contrary, governments should formulate policy based on AGW, if not CAGW.

Otherwise, a «scientist» could choose a null hypothesis that was so off base that it could be rejected when compared to practically any hypothesis.

The null hypothesis should be based on known physics rather than denial of it.

The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation.

Obviously, there is a logical contradiction here, if both conclusions, «global warming» and «pause» over the recent 20 years were equally valid, based on the same logic of reasoning and using the same data, only switching the Null - hypothesis with the alternative hypothesis, since the two conclusions are mutually exclusive.

The theoretical foundations of model selection are often poorly understood by practitioners of null hypothesis testing, and even many proponents of Chamberlin's method may not fully appreciate its historical basis.

The warmest position is based on the exact opposite of the null hypothesis — that is, co2 drives climate change and by golly, I will build models to prove it!

In both meta - analysis of structural and functional brain alterations in adolescents with AB versus controls, no studies providing results based on a priori region - of - interest analysis only were included (since they violate the assumption, under the null hypothesis, that the likelihood of locating activated foci is equal at every voxel).