Hi Buzz, I just want to clear something up and please bear in mind I'm missing out a lot to keep things concise.
The null hypothesis is a very important component of the scientific methodology. I think calling the null hypothesis (H0) non-factual is not helpful.
Let me explain: when using the scientific method ones typically starts with an observation; such as Croatians are taller than English people. This is a real world observation that could be true or it could be coincidence.
I could design an experiment to test my hypothesis (H1) that there is a difference between the heights of the two peoples.
Obviously I can't measure everyones height (this would however give my a pretty conclusive answer as to whether there is a hieght difference) so I take a sample of the two peoples and assume they represent the two people reasonably accurately.
Without going into too much detail I could find that there is a difference between the height or not.
In this case my HI (hypothesis) it that there is a height difference. The H0 (null hypothesis) is that any difference is unconnected with country of origin i.e. country of origin has nothing to do with it.
Now, when I gather my data (assuming I do it correctly) I can use a set of statistics to analys the data to see if any difference in height could be attributed to country of origin or not. My efforts would be in attempting to rule out H1. If I can they my hypothesis (H1) is wrong and I have to accept H0.
To be clear
I try to reject my own hypothesis (H1).
If I can't (and if I can show my that my experiement and stats hold up to scrutiny) I can say H1 has been supported (not proved, mind).
If the statistical analysis says 'the heights of these people are significantly different' we can say we reject the HO (that country of origin has nothing to do with it).
So the hypothesis is always tested against the notion that it is dead wrong.
In this case my H1 is that country of origin affects hieght. My H0 is that country of origin does not effect height.
When people talk about falsification and hypothesis they don't mean proving it wrong. They mean having a H0 that can be rejected.
I think the proble that people have with ID is that it has no H0 to reject. With ID the H1 would be that things are designed and H0 would be that things are not designed. The IDist does not attempt to choose between H1 or H0; the IDist has already concluded that H0 is wrong, by-passing the scientific methodology.
The scientist attempts to rule out his hypothesis by testing it against H0.
The IDist attempts to rule in his hypothesis by not having a H0.
This is the big difference between science and creation science and why people on this site keep saying ID isn't science.
Hope this helps.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
