There is no objective meaning to the term 'default hypothesis'. Defaults are arbitrary choices that vary with the risks that the investigator is willing to tolerate.
There is no physical state corresponding to a default hypothesis. Engineers and scientists never refer to 'default hypotheses'. Engineers, physicists and chemists working with statistics use hypothesis testing, where no default exists. When one actually uses hypothesis testing, one has to decide on the risk levels. There is no a priori reason that a null hypothesis entails any more risk than a positive hypothesis.
Hypothesis testing requires one to choose the hypothesis one wants to test in terms of the penalties one is willing to incur. No one has to falsify a hypothesis that you and you alone decided was a 'default' hypothesis. What you decide is a default hypothesis may be what someone else decides is the least likely hypothesis.
An engineer has to decide on a risk level for both a hypothesis and the converse of the hypothesis. One worry about false positives and false alarms. You can't make any contingency less risky merely by calling it a default.
There is no priority of a null hypothesis over a positive hypothesis, also. In statistics, they have equal a priori validity. A hypothesis stated as a null is no more a default than a hypothesis stated as positive.
Your use of the word 'default' is disingenuous. No one is at fault if he does not agree with you. There is no 'default hypothesis. If there was a default hypothesis, then it requires someone to be at fault. It is not God's fault if He doesn't exist. His existence is just a hypothesis.
There are only false alarms and false positives in hypothesis testing. I would argue that the very word default implies an intelligent designer. You had to hypothesize the existence of an intelligent designer before you used the word default.
Since any positive hypothesis can be expressed as a null hypothesis, there is no way to unambiguously distinguish them. You can put multiple negatives in any statement, converting them from one to the other. Hence, the 'default' is subjective. Any subject can make an arbitrary decision on what the null hypothesis is merely by stacking the negative statements.
Please cite us any statistician anywhere or any when who has used the concept of a default hypothesis. I don't think any scientist anywhere has ever used the phrase default hypothesis.
It is not our fault that there is no default!
And actually, it is the defects in crystals that actually contain the 'code'. Crystal defects often have a very complex structure. The code in a snowflake is the sequence of non repeating structures that grow out from the center of the snowflake.
Speaking of defaults, let us look at the faults in crystals.
When one bombards a single crystal with nuclear radiation, the first defects are point defects. Annealing at finite temperature causes these defects to collect in highly complex structures including spirals and slip planes. I studied the 'evolution' of radiation defects a long time ago. Nonlinear interactions makes the precise sequence of atoms in a complex defect impossible to predict precisely. However, determinist laws of physics are 'guiding' every step.
Defects evolve from one form to another. This is am evolution that you should to research.
Last edited:
Which just got PUMMELED!!
! The citations are about experiments. Statistical matching of observations are not experiments!