So, if I were to know the relationship b/w say two variables A and B. Wouldn't I start with a null hypothesis, say A and B are unrelated and proceed testing the r'ship? If the result doesnt yield, my null hypothesis stand. As long as its falsifiable, it shouldn't be a problem.
1. If you assume that vaccines cannot impair brain development (causally independent variables), and in 0.1% of children they do, your sample size may never be large enough to force you to change your null hypothesis, and you would miss the effect.
-
-
2. “Carefully” means that there is a mathematically optimal way from counting all the bits on your interface to the universe. If you deviate from it, your world model is more likely to be wrong.
-
So Joscha, what signs would show us the end times are IMMINENT. PM me please this one
#ForReal - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
In the eg above, a 0.1% is alarming considering the irreversible effect it has on the person. In cases say, flight cancellation is 0.1% in a certain month, retaining a null hypothesis(flight doesnt cancel), wouldn't seem a problem. The cost associated with it should b considered.
-
Yes, but there is also a cost when not vaccinating.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.