General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Those claiming to be anti "woo" and pro science [View all]Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Hypothesis have to be falsifiable.
For example, someone in my program defended a thesis last year about our particular archaeological site. She had the null hypothesis "
Our site) is a natural site". Then she looked for archaeological evidence, specifically culturally identifiable markings on animal bones (cut marks, chop marks, sawing, hammering, etc) to disprove the null hypothesis. She then used statistics to see if her results were statistically significant. Her evidence went against the null hypothesis, so she rejected it. When the null hypothesis is rejected, an alternative hypothesis is then provided. In her case, the alternative hypothesis was "
our site) is a cultural site". Her evidence supported that hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis was accepted.
I can get into the cluster analysis and the significance testing, if you really want me to.