Talk:Null hypothesis

I'm wondering if someone who knows more about this subject than I could phrase it better. The article says that the Null hypothesis is "a default state that is considered true until disproved." But then the example given is the "null hypothesis states that Drug X is not effective". That sounds like assuming something is not true rather than that it is true.

I imagine that the idea is "It is true that drug X is not effective.", but I had to read the stub several times to get the point. It is of course possible that:

• I am just a bit slow at understanding these things.
• I have misunderstood.
• That this is the traditional way of presenting the idea.

But I do think it could be clearer.--Herbert the Hamster 12:50, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Nanobots

I think the example

• Nanobots: that machines at nanoscale do not behave as hypothesised by Drexler.

assumes a bit too much knowledge on the art of the reader. Who is Drexler and what does he hypothesise?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nanobots - he came up with the "nanotechnology" hype - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's still not a very clear example as presented.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I put that in because I actually wrote that trying to get the concept of a null hypothesis and its use in evaluating possible woo to a nanobot advocate. Rephrasings welcome - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This needs help.

This is really not well done. I'll try to work on it later. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 20:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)