Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Rejecting the null - Is it good for researcher or not

    Not what you're looking for? Search our solutions OR ask your own Custom question.

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Refer to the null hypothesis as a theory that has been presented because the researcher believes it to be true or would like to use it as a basis for a future argument. It is critical to understand that a null hypothesis has not been proven on any level and thus the experiment. Additional special consideration is always given to the null hypothesis over the alternative hypothesis simply because it directly relates to the statement that is being tested. On the other hand the alternative hypothesis is accepted when the null hypothesis is rejected. When the research or test is concluded the conclusion are always in relation to the null hypothesis. Simply stated you either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis and the concept of rejecting or failing to reject the alternative hypothesis would never be used.
    Could rejecting the null hypothesis actually be a positive thing in an experiment or test? Please provide and example with your thoughts.
    Could you think of a situation where rejecting the null hypothesis does not mean the alternative hypothesis is true.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com March 4, 2021, 8:03 pm ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Hypothesis testing works like a legal trial. The accused is treated as innocent unless proven otherwise. Therefore, our null hypothesis is that the person is innocent. If we are unable to gather enough evidence to reject the null, we declare that the person is innocent. However, if we are able to collect enough evidence and reject the null, we say that the person is not innocent and should be convicted.

    Normally, when we are building hypothesis, the researcher who is proposing a new theory would frame his argument as the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, the onus of collecting the evidence and rejecting the null is on him, while the existing theory or current state of knowledge is treated as null hypothesis. In this way, if researcher fails to reject the null, the new theory is not accepted. Whereas if the null is rejected, then it is ...

    Solution Summary

    The post discusses the hypothesis testing as a theory building exercise and whether accepting or rejecting null hypothesis is good or bad. In approximately 600 words, the post explains with examples how hypothesis trial works like a legal trial where the accused is innocent until proven guilty and takes the argument from there to put the discussion in perspective.