Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A working hypothesis is a provisionally-accepted hypothesis used for the purpose of pursuing further progress in research. Working hypotheses are frequently discarded, and often proposed with knowledge (and warning ) that they are incomplete and thus false, with the intent of moving research in at least somewhat the right direction, especially ...
An example of Neyman–Pearson hypothesis testing (or null hypothesis statistical significance testing) can be made by a change to the radioactive suitcase example. If the "suitcase" is actually a shielded container for the transportation of radioactive material, then a test might be used to select among three hypotheses: no radioactive source ...
In scientific research, the null hypothesis (often denoted H 0) [1] is the claim that the effect being studied does not exist. [note 1] The null hypothesis can also be described as the hypothesis in which no relationship exists between two sets of data or variables being analyzed.
An example can be whether a machine produces more than one-percent defective products. In this situation, if the estimated value exists in one of the one-sided critical areas, depending on the direction of interest (greater than or less than), the alternative hypothesis is accepted over the null hypothesis.
For Putnam, the working hypothesis represents a practical starting point in the design of an empirical research exploration. A contrasting example of this conception of the working hypothesis is illustrated by the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment. This experiment involves confronting the global skeptic position that we, in fact, are all just ...
As a mundane example, he described how to test the lady tasting tea hypothesis, that a certain lady could distinguish by flavour alone whether the milk or the tea was first placed in the cup. These methods have been broadly adapted in biological, psychological, and agricultural research. [17] Comparison
Hypothesis-driven studies can be transformed into discovery-driven studies with the help of newly available tools and technology-driven life science research. [5] These tools have allowed for new questions to be asked, and new paradigms to be considered, particularly in the field of biology.
The Contact Hypothesis has been supported by decades of research. Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp’s meta-analysis [4] of over 700 independent samples confirms the contact hypothesis for a variety of minority groups and conservatively estimates the average correlation between contact and prejudice as -.215 (N > 250,000, p < .0001).