question about null hypothesis?

Question

I'm doing homework and can't figure out which one is right:

-We seek to prove the "null" hypothesis when doing research.
-We cannot "prove" the null hypothesis.

I cant find it in my book either...does anyone know?

Answer 1

Neither is correct. A null hypothesis is put forward for the express purpose of refuting it to support the alternative hypothesis. You can prove it but since its a null hypothesis that would be the opposite of your goal. So the first is a contradition and the second is just stupid unless your refuting your own evidence so as to not support the null hypothesis you put forward.

Answer 2

You don't prove the null hypothesis because it is the hypothesis already assumed to be true before you conduct a study to reject it. It's like the "common sense" that the world is flat before Galileo proved it was not. You don't have to prove it because the community assumes it as fact to begin with. The alternative hypothesis is the one we have to prove to reject the null.

Answer 3

The null hypothesis, by definition, is what happens if your original hypothesis is false. So you are definately not trying to prove your null hypothesis.

Answer 4

not sure what you're after...

but the first one is the premise of research - its always easy to ind evidence for your research, so you should try and prove your null hypothesis. by being unable to prove it, it by default proves your hypothesis.

so actually both are correct depending on context.

x

Answer 5

I'm pretty well versed in recreational hypnosis and null is something i have never heared of.