Timeline for Why do statisticians say a non-significant result means "you can't reject the null" as opposed to accepting the null hypothesis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2022 at 13:44 | comment | added | Nuclear Hoagie | A properly powered hypothesis test that fails to reject the null is absolutely evidence of absence. Sufficient power means that you likely would have rejected the null if it were indeed false, the fact that you didn't implies that it is not false. This answer suggests that if you check to see if there's an elephant in your closet and don't see one, it is not evidence that your closet is elephant-free. | |
| Jul 16, 2020 at 12:12 | comment | added | probabilityislogic | sigh...yet again I see this quote being stated and yet again i must point out it is a false statement. absence of evidence is not proof of absence. It is evidence of absence though. Think - if I ingest a new substance it might be poisoness. After doing this once and finding no side effects - I have got evidence of absence of poison, from the absence of an effect in the data I observed. But it's not proof (maybe I was lucky), for this would require more data, as you say. | |
| Feb 10, 2014 at 15:16 | history | answered | Thomas Speidel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |