Null hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis
Null vs Alternative hypothesis in practice - Cross Validated
Null vs. Alternative Hypothesis
A null hypothesis represents the status quo. Ie a manufacturer claims that their baseball weighs 50grams. So our null is that the mean weight is 50grams. An alternative is a departure from that null. I think the manufacturer is lying. So the alternative is that the mean weight is not 50 grams. I'm not claiming to know what the mean weight actually is, only that it's significantly different from 50 grams.
More on reddit.comDid you find the idea of a null hypothesis to be confusing when you were first learning statistics? If you did, then what did you find confusing about it?
Yes. If you didn't find the idea of the null hypothesis confusing, you didn't understand it.
There's an article by Gigerenzer called "Mindless Statstics" here: http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/gg/GG_Mindless_2004.pdf where he talks about this. The problem is that hypothesis testing, as we think of it, is a mash up of two (or three) very different ways of thinking about what p-values mean. (The three are Fisher, Neyman-Pearson, and Bayes). These people had arguments that went on for decades about these things, and now we act like those differences don't exist. The notion of a type I error doesn't make sense under Fisher's approach. Under Neyman-Pearson's approach, a p-value is greater than 0.05, or it's not. You don't report p=0.035. So you can't report exact p-values, and talk about type I and type II errors, and be logically consistent. But we try.
More on reddit.comWhat are null and alternative hypotheses?
What’s the difference between a research hypothesis and a statistical hypothesis?
What is hypothesis testing?
Videos
Hey! Can someone explain to me in simple terms the definition of null hypothesis? If u can use an example it would be great! Also if we reject the null hypothesis does it mean that the alternative hypothesis is true?
Your question starts out as if the statistical null and alternative hypotheses are what you are interested in, but the penultimate sentence makes me think that you might be more interested in the difference between scientific and statistical hypotheses.
Statistical hypotheses can only be those that are expressible within a statistical model. They typically concern values of parameters within the statistical model. Scientific hypotheses almost invariably concern the real world, and they often do not directly translate into the much more limited universe of the chosen statistical model. Few introductory stats books spend any real time considering what constitutes a statistical model (it can be very complicated) and the trivial examples used have scientific hypotheses so simple that the distinction between model and real-world hypotheses is blurry.
I have written an extensive account of hypothesis and significance testing that includes several sections dealing with the distinction between scientific and statistical hypotheses, as well as the dangers that might come from assuming a match between the statistical model and the real-world scientific concerns: A Reckless Guide to P-values
So, to answer your explicit questions:
• No, statisticians do not always use null and alternative hypotheses. Many statistical methods do not require them.
• It is common practice in some disciplines (and maybe some schools of statistics) to specify the null and alternative hypothesis when a hypothesis test is being used. However, you should note that a hypotheses test requires an explicit alternative for the planning stage (e.g. for sample size determination) but once the data are in hand that alternative is no longer relevant. Many times the post-data alternative can be no more than 'not the null'.
• I'm not sure of the mental heuristic thing, but it does seem possible to me that the beginner courses omit so much detail in the service of simplicity that the word 'hypothesis' loses its already vague meaning.
You wrote
the declaration of a null and alternative hypothesis is the "first step" of any good experiment and subsequent analysis.
Well, you did put quotes around first step, but I'd say the first step in an experiment is figuring out what you want to figure out.
As to "subsequent analysis", it might even be that the subsequent analysis does not involve testing a hypothesis! Maybe you just want to estimate a parameter. Personally, I think tests are overused.
Often, you know in advance that the null is false and you just want to see what is actually going on.