In the last three months I’ve been re-acquainting myself with basic statistics. It’s a periodic re-learning that usually occurs when I don’t get the statistical result I had wanted or suddenly develop an urge to learn R. This time around, I was struck with a realization: no scientist ever uses the null hypothesis.

I want to use this blog post to make a case  for using this very same null hypothesis.

I think the argument boils down to the idea that nothing in science can ever be proven true. That is nature of the scientific method and the statistical analyses we commonly use.  The best that we can hope to do is disprove a negative. This, to me, makes a lot of intuitive sense. The nature of science is to never be certain and always questioning results because new techniques and findings are bound to come along that will reshape our understanding. Nothing is definite, which makes disproving a negative all the more practical that trying to come up with a definite.

Personally, I think that there is an psychological advantage to using null hypotheses. If you’re never in search of a positive you are less likely to be disappointed with the inevitable negative.  Its a matter of perspective. I believe that if we train ourselves to only try and disprove no effect hypotheses, then we would never try to chase false positives. A real problem considering that our favorite P-values don’t really mean much

So I ask, what’s in a hypothesis? Statistically, it is required to perform the necessary calculations and make assumptions but I don’t know of any scientist that strictly adheres to these principles. I think that for most of us, it is a fluid idea that shifts and changes with every experiment. We are all trying to form a coherent and logical story based off of our results.

But perhaps we shouldn’t. For the  sake of doing good science and preserving our own mental health it might be better to have a definite preconceived null hypotheses to disprove.

 

The following two tabs change content below.

Yuriy Baglaenko

Founding Editor
Yuriy is a 4th year PhD student studying the suppression of autoimmunity at the University of Toronto. He is an avid musician with an at-home amateur recording studio and a mediocre intramural volleyball player.
Previous post The Web as an indispensable tool for scientists
Next post Letter from the Chair – Spring 2014

2 thoughts on “What’s in a Hypothesis?

Leave a Reply to Sameer Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close
The newest issue of IMMpress is now available! This time, we tackled all things work culture, from universal basic income to unions and more! Check it out by clicking the link below https://t.co/dDatJRPNi8 https://t.co/2scopoDpCU
h J R
@immpressmag
VR has already changed the world in every way, from medical training to how we view entertainment. As education moves online with the pandemic, how will VR change the classroom? Click the link below to find out! 🕹 https://t.co/g1uYViavAN
h J R
@immpressmag
The newest issue of IMMpress magazine is now out! This time, we delved into the world of technology in healthcare 🔬 Check it out and let us know what you think! https://t.co/HyBn12R6Fd
h J R
@immpressmag
One of few positive outcomes from this pandemic was the advent of mRNA vaccines. And with a rise in funding for this research, scientists can continue to improve this technology. Check out this article by @pu_annie to learn everything you need to know! https://t.co/2GtcexUBvl
h J R
@immpressmag
Check out the link in our below to read the newest IMMpress blog post! Our DOI undergrads Rahman and Aly did a great job on this one 🤩 https://t.co/yeTs2q6S7x
h J R
@immpressmag

Sponsors