ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Atheist Debates - Atheism, the Null Hypothesis
ความคิดเห็น • 366
ต่อไป
เล่นอัตโนมัติ
Atheist Debates - I'm Dishonest in Debates?Matt Dillahunty
มุมมอง 50K
Atheist Debates - DebateCon 3.1 Debate reviewsMatt Dillahunty
มุมมอง 24K
Matt Makes a Correction on the Null Hypothesis From Last Week | Atheist Experience 21.08The Atheist Experience
มุมมอง 17K
‘เสรีพิศุทธ์’ ตบเท้าร่วมรัฐบาล บอกไม่รู้ทำไม เกิดมาต้องรับใช้เพื่อไทยตลอดเรื่องเล่าเช้านี้
มุมมอง 344K
LISA - NEW WOMAN feat. Rosalía (MV Teaser)LLOUD Official
มุมมอง 6M
【斗罗大陆】抢唐三车拍照欺负唐老六，唐三允许了吗？#斗罗大陆#唐三#唐老六萌萌与舞桐
มุมมอง 2.8M
Atheist Debates - Black Swan fallacy vs Null HypothesisMatt Dillahunty
มุมมอง 28K
Atheist Debates - That should be ILLEGAL!?Matt Dillahunty
มุมมอง 27K
DO YOU KNOW GOD? D'Souza vs DillahuntyPangburn
มุมมอง 21K
Atheist Debates - Nonresistant NonbeliefMatt Dillahunty
มุมมอง 29K
Atheist Debates - Genesis 1 and 2 - are they contradictory?Matt Dillahunty
มุมมอง 42K
God is Origin of Universe, Something from Nothing, Deduction | Jason - CA | Atheist Experience 23.18The Atheist Experience
มุมมอง 369K
Atheist Debates - Why Philosophy can't find God...Matt Dillahunty
มุมมอง 35K
Atheist Debates - The Highlander argument against ChristianityMatt Dillahunty
มุมมอง 38K
Egyptian Genocide Is Proof Of A Good GodThe Atheist Experience
มุมมอง 90K
น้องๆ พี่เจอผีที่โรงเรียน!!EE
มุมมอง 582K
LISA - NEW WOMAN feat. Rosalía (Official Music Video) REACTION!!!BRISxLIFE
มุมมอง 91K
【斗罗大陆】抢唐三车拍照欺负唐老六，唐三允许了吗？#斗罗大陆#唐三#唐老六萌萌与舞桐
มุมมอง 2.8M
Pick a Color, I'll Buy 🟪🟨Brianna
มุมมอง 31M
นนท์เดอะซีรีส์ EP.23 ตอน ห่าก้อม โคตรปอบมนต์ดำ | หลอนไดอารี่หลอนไดอารี่
มุมมอง 848K
🔴Live โหนกระแส ศึกชิงอพาร์ทเม้นท์ ผัวเมียหย่ากันแบ่งสมบัติไม่ลงตัวโหนกระแส [Hone-Krasae] official
มุมมอง 603K
A default position needs to be falsifiable…I swear I love these videos!
The set theory interpretation of the null hypothesis is very helpful. Thanks!
Thanks for your continued dedication to critical thinking. It is something everyone should study, but is sorely lacking in our system of education.
Hoping that you’re well from here in Massachusetts.
Matt USED to be rational... until he started accepting claims, using the EXACT SAME logic and standard of evidence, as the Christians, Muslims and Scientologists he mocks (correctly, but utterly hypocritically).
The evidence for "I have a personal relationship with Jesus" is perfectly 100% IDENTICAL to the evidence supporting Matt's belief that "transwomen ARE women" (or that "Non-binary" is anything more than a religious catagory, or virtuallly ANY claim relating to sex-independent "gender")
The above claims both have ZERO empirical evidence. Yet their respective believers BOTH accept them as "the REAL truth", justifed ONLY by "but it FEEELS true, to me!!!"
Matt's beliefs are EXACTLY as irrational, and self-contradictary as the more traditional religions, that he (correctly... but utterly hypocritically...) critiques so smugly.
-Matt CLAIMS to believe that "gender is just a social construct"... But how can a "mere social construct" EVER justify 100% medically-unneccessary drugs/surgery, INTENDED to alter your physiology (specifically, the SEX-based aspects of physiology)?
-How can "just a social construct" ALONE transform a child's 100% healthy, normal, natural (according to the child's EVIDENCE-BASED sex) development, into the super-urgent """medical""" emergency of "The Wrong Puberty"? Matt loves accusing CRITICS of evidence-free "gender" ideology, of "conflating sex with gender". But how could anyone make the above two claims UNLESS, like Matt, they conflate "FEEELS true, to me", evidence-free 'gender', with real-world, evidence-based biological sex?
The ideology of evidence-free 'gender' RELIES on believers "conflating sex with gender", for it to make ANY semblance of sense. (Specially, it relies on the bizarre belief that the totally unsupported assertion of "gender" somehow OUT-WEIGHS the undeniable empirical evidence of sex, which somehow transforms your real-world, evidence-based sex into being "not REALLY true", and thus a hateful, unspeakable """falsehood""")
-How can believers like Matt simultaneously claim "just a social construct" (ie. The claim that "gender" is 100% learned/'nurture')... but ALSO claim "born this way" (ie. That "gender" is 100% innate/'nature')? Is this like Jesus, bejng "fully man yet fully god", at the same time?
-if you use drugs and/or surgery to ensure that anyone with "masculine personality/ identity/ interests/ traits/ soul"(Ignoring the question of what that even MEANS) ends up with a flat chest, narrow hips and facial hair. And that anyone with "female personality/ identity/ soul" ends up with breasts and female fat distribution, does that mean you are OPPOSING traditional gender stereotypes? ...or, does that mean you are STRENGTHENING and ENFORCING traditional gender stereotypes?
-Matt claims to be an "ally" to gays and lesbians, yet he aggressively pushes an ideology which (1) chemically sterilizes thousands of gender non-conforming children, who'd otherwise grow up to be gay/lesbian (yt search "detrans", to see countless first-hand accounts of this). And (2) which claims that gays and lesbians, being DEFINITIONALLY same-SEX attracted (not "same-GENDER" attracted), makes them "hateful transphobic bigots"?
Matt's religion has ALREADY erased the defintion of "women", to the extent that women have no protection from being locked in a cell with a fully-intact, biologically male, convicted raapist. And now they're ALSO actively, aggressively trying to erase the identity of gays and lesbians... There are ALREADY (previously legitimate) "lesbian" dating apps where >40% of accounts are biological males, who pressure women for sex, under threat of getting the women banned for "transphobia".
People should be 100% free to dress, act, speak, fvck how they want, REGARDLESS of their sex... and WITHOUT the expectation of harmful, totally medically unneccessary drugs/surgeries...
But NOBODY gets to re-define all of reality. Or force others to pretend to believe a lie...
Sex is based ONLY on simple, real-world, empirical evidence.
On the other hand, "gender" has ZERO basis in empirical evidence, and is based 100% on bald-faced assertion.
Any religion which requires us to PRETEND that we hold empty assertion (ie "gender") as somehow being "the REAL truth", above evidence-based fact (ie sex) is EVEN WORSE than traditional religions- MORE harmful. MORE authoritarian. MORE dishonest.
And the amount of people willing to sacrifice the health of children, as well as the rights/safety of women, and the rights of gays and lesbians, to these claims with ZERO empirical evidence is just pathetic...
06:56 "Atheism is the rejection of that position". I can't tell you how glad I am to hear you say that.
@@JimCastleberry
Jim, you’re confused.
But can you demonstrate a god exists?
@@moonshoes11 You failed to demonstrate I'm confused. Are you lying?
Try to stop lying.
@@JimCastleberry you're being watched. Careful.
@@JimCastleberryyou are simply wrong. I am an atheist. I don't claim that no deity exists. This is true of literally every atheist I have ever met. Delahunt also has never claimed that no deity exists. Atheism simply means "I don't believe in a god" it is not "I believe no god exists".if you don't want to meet a person where they are, and use terms in the way that a person who claims the title, you are arguing against a position they don't hold. Thus you are creating a straw man.
@@cammybaby01 Nobody claimed atheists CLAIM there is no God. Atheism and theism are BELIEF positions. Atheism is the doctrine (belief) that no deity exists.
Dillahunty, indoctrinates his minions, to falsely claim atheism is something other than a belief position while he lies about theistic belief being a claim.
He is simply lying to claim atheism is neutral on belief. The entire world understands atheism is not uncommitted or neutral on belief in God.
Atheists began this charade of hiding atheism behind agnosticism less than ten years ago because they cannot justify atheism as an intellectual position.
I'm simply telling the truth about atheist lies.
Matt Dillahunty's argument form/technique can be used for much more than just religious questions.
I wish I'd heard this way back when I was still a prisoner of faith. Great stuff.
I can’t get over how anyone can crusade against religion for so long. I used to watch all of Matt’s videos and listen to the Atheist Experience for years but eventually it became so tedious to continually listen to the same arguments and explanations… good on those who can keep this mission going and hopefully open the minds of as many indoctrinated individuals as possible…
Understandable but I get why Matt does this even after listening to largely the same arguments for years and years on AXP and in debates.
I can’t get over how many adherents of religion there still seem to be.
“Dead horse” debates, as it were.
However, there are always new listeners…people who are just becoming aware of these concepts, never having been exposed to them.
@@TheGamerzOfTheUSA
Wait, you think atheists depend on fallacious reasoning? When holding the rational position of not accepting claims for the supernatural which have never been demonstrable?
Come on, greenie….you can do better.
I feel you so much. I wander around Quora, and it's the same few damn questions over and over and over and over again, with minimal differences. And the I look at the responses to the questions like "What's your stronger evidence for the existence of god?", and they're all so bad and silly.
I'm always reminded of a cartoon joke, in which there's a doctor sitting a table, administering injections. There is a long line in front of him, and he's yelling at the patient whose turn it is: "Sleeve! SLEEVE! Roll up your sleeve! Jesus, you must be an absolute moron, I've told you at least fifty times today!"
The joke being, of course, that while he's told that same thing to *somebody* many times that day, it was always somebody new, not the same guy. And that's exactly how I feel with theists.
My null hypothesis is that A God Existing is indistinguishable from A God NOT Existing, and I've pretty much just put it to rest there
Are you an Atheist or some kind of satanist? Because, If you believe in satan that’s just as silly as believing in an invisible, non tangible god.
@@MAA-hu3do she doesn't need to believe Satan exists to like Satan
Just like I wouldn't need to believe that Harry Potter existed to like him
@@drsatan9617 what is there to like? That’s just sick. But whatever, I suppose. If that floats your boat have at it.
@@MAA-hu3do different strokes for different folks
@Dr Satan and so on, and so on, and scooby-dooby dooby.
Dwight definitively proved that Ryan started the fire. 😎
Thank you, Matt!
We appreciate your help so much!
If I remember correctly, you either Reject the Null (some association exists) or Fail to Reject the Null (no association is found to exist). Based on the evidence on the existence of a god, we have to fail to reject the null.
Correct. However “some association exists” is usually claimed when there is a statistically significant difference between the null and the tested hypothesis. The strength of that association is shown by mathematical levels of confidence, which in essence shows that whatever difference is observed is unlikely to be due to a chance variation in the distribution of the data. In other words, the observed result could be due to random variation, but this is statistically unlikely. The smaller the confidence level 0.01 (as opposed to 0.05) the less likely it is that the result is to be due to random variation in the data set.
Ps. This is also why acceptance of the experimental hypothesis is always held tentatively.
The only thing that i'm sure of is that the Gods as described in the abrahamic religions have no chance of excisting.
So, is it the same principle as “I don’t believe “X” until “X” is proven to exist”?
That's one way to look at it. More like "I don't believe X until the is good reason to believe X" . Existence being one such reason.
I'd say the Null Hypothesis is what's left when the claim and/or competing claims should all be disproved. The Null Hypothesis of is Hinduism true is atheism and not Christianity as Christianity doesn't magically become default just because Hinduism is false.
There are several criticisms of the null hypothesis, which include:
Lack of proof: The null hypothesis can never be proven, only rejected. This means that even if the null hypothesis is rejected, we cannot conclude with absolute certainty that the alternative hypothesis is true. This has led some researchers to argue that the null hypothesis is not a very useful or informative concept.
Dichotomous thinking: The null hypothesis assumes a dichotomous thinking in which the only two options are either to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. This approach can be limiting, especially when dealing with complex phenomena that cannot be reduced to a simple yes or no question.
Misinterpretation: There is a risk of misinterpreting the results of statistical tests when the null hypothesis is rejected. For example, some researchers might interpret a significant result as evidence that the alternative hypothesis is true, when in fact it could simply mean that the null hypothesis was not a good fit for the data.
Ignores effect size: The null hypothesis only focuses on statistical significance, ignoring the effect size of the difference between groups or conditions. This can be problematic as a statistically significant result may not necessarily be practically significant.
Assumes no effect: The null hypothesis assumes that there is no effect or relationship between the variables being studied, which may not always be a realistic assumption. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to use a directional or non-directional alternative hypothesis that proposes a specific effect or relationship.
Overall, while the null hypothesis is a fundamental concept in statistical inference, it is not without its limitations and criticisms. It is important for researchers to carefully consider the strengths and weaknesses of the null hypothesis and to use it appropriately in the context of their research questions and hypotheses.
If you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But until it has some factual evidence to prove it the logical thing to do is to assume it doesn't exist.
The Null hypothesis has common ground with Ocham's Razor. They are both principles of ( proper ) exclusion. Ocham's Razor; exclude from consideration ( or demand extra proof and demonstration of ) those arguments that have a greater number of explanation elements compared to those that have fewer. The Null hypothesis; ( all other things being equal ) feel free to disregard mere unsupported assertions. I propose this question what is the opposite of the Null hypothesis? I answer, it is to believe as true everything you hear from anyone. And of course, the Null hypothesis is just the first level of screening.
There is a third closely related principle---Baye's theorem. To my mind this is also a thought process founded on an exclusionary principle.
I think we all think of thought as additive. We have an idea that feels right. We think of some evidence to support it, so it is proven--it's True in our minds. What should be true is true. Is 'True'.
In all the other models, or model, one of two competing hypothesis is judged to have less evidence to support it. The best is found by process of elimination. We call the winner in this process true. Small 't' true. New evidence can come to light. Indeed we are on the lookout for it.
When I’m asked why I don’t believe, I ask the if they really think talking snakes and donkeys should be the default position
Or why fairies and leprechauns aren't the default position
You should stop ignoring evidence and learn to go by evidence for the truth. All atheists like Matt do it find a clever way to rfeject,deny and explain away all evidence for God while they sit there with no evidence trying to hide behind the null hypothesis.
@@abelcainsbrother You've convinced me. I don't know why I didn't look at it that way before.
@@LanceDobson Well you should renounce atheism and stop listening to Matt for truth when he offers no evidence and has no desire to make sure he is correct living as an atheist.Did you listen to this video? Why continue to be influenced by people who don't go by evidence and don't know how to follow evidence to determine if something is true or not, like atheism?
@@abelcainsbrother did Matt offer evidence in this video? I don't remember him offering evidence
OMG! I literally just pulled a cat out of my sock drawer while listening to this video. If I leave it open just a crack, she will find a way in:)
So, by my understanding, the Null hypothesis is a rational for establishing the burden of proof, or , as I would prefer, the burden of demonstration. That burden falls, IE, is rationally assumed, by the person making the positive thesis. They do this by making a case as best they can, and accepting questions. 'A positive thesis' is important. What is not a positive thesis is some vague generality followed with, 'By which I mean not this, not that, and not this other thing'---with no examples or specifics.
Or maybe this is wrong. Maybe the Null hypothesis is that quote of Christopher Hitchens. 'What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without reason.' Which means, in a serious discussion everybody's feelings and mere assertions about what is real is worth the same, that is, not much.
no, the null hypothesis refers to a specific thing in statistics. it's like how people conflate colloquial proof with mathematical proof
@@neetpride5919 I suggest Michael Shermer's I Want To Believe. The Null hypothesis ( which I think is better called the Null Supposition ) starts two paragraphs down and runs for two paragraphs.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 I forgot about that (already read it) but you're proving my point anyway. Null Supposition is a much better term. Burden of Demonstration is a good term too. Really sad Shermer misused statistical jargon so frivolously...
Question. How come individuals like Matt don't participate in speaking at schools, or doing those live questionnaires that Ben and William Craig do?
Maybe I am blind but back when i was in Highscool, I remember watching so many live speaking involving Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Niel Degrass Tyson, Michio Kaku, etc. (I took em for granted because I was so engrained in religion but bit by bit, they slowly made me skeptical)
But after the death of Stephen Hawkings, I kinda saw a shift and intellectuals are no longer contacted to discuss important topics. Now we ask what Snoop dog thinks or Lil Wayne, or a news correspondent that has the same boss as the person asking the questions.
I always figured AE could've expanded their horizons and fought to do live shows for children or appear at chrisitan schools. In all honesty, being an athiest is not enough. Don't for one second think the otherside is going to respect your stance because we respect theirs.
Meh... i am ranting. Feel quite powerless as religious doctrine continues to poison the government.
Top theists always win these world class debates with atheists. Dillahunty is not a serious person worthy of debating people like William Lane Craig or Lennox. Dillahunty has no training in Philosophy or science. He is just a hack with a forceful personality, a hot head and a gift for bluster and BS.
@@JimCastleberry More of your baseless assertions. Dillahunty doesn't speak at schools because he's not unnaturally attracted to children like so many christian superstitionists.
It's very religious everything you just said. And empty without any meaning and much less truth that you could possibly show any justification for.
Your Godless religion is so deep within you that you can't even see in your religious blindness that you can't possibly show any justification or evidence for the meaningfulness of what you just said.
Therefore, everything you just said (like everything Matt just said in this video) is just empty Godless religious unjustified claims that can just be ignored.
Explain your lie about religious doctrine poisoning the government? This should be fun.
@@taowaycamino4891 Yea, I agree. But unfortunately ignoring Christianity won't make it go away.
"There is NEVER a cat in my sock drawer" would be the unprovable null hypothesis in that example.
it is provable through microscopic analysis of the sock drawer
@@scambammer6102 Not even then. The cat that has never yet been in the sock drawer has not even left microscopic evidence, but may still one day enter the sock drawer, and so even though "there has never been a cat in my sock drawer" may be falsifiable, but "There is never a cat in my sock drawer" not being limited to the past, won't be provable until the end of the sock drawer's existence. But.. that depends on what the definition of "is" is.😂
As someone who loves the occasional deep dive into statistical methods and distributions, I find the analogy to empirical null hypotheses useful. I don't know that arguments can provide evidence that would warrant rejecting the null hypothesis is an *objective way (everyone can get the same statistic for empirical data based on a specific model, but they may disagree on their rejection criterion), since the effectiveness of arguments appears to be subjective and difficult to quantify. It would also help if the alternative hypothesis had a specific model, rather than a panacea. It's very hard to model the effect when God could do anything consistent with His nature and we can't know what His nature is. A model that explains all existing data tends to have negligible predictive power, like overfitting a data set with a high order polynomial can make your model go through every data point you have, but will typically fail catastrophically at predicting the values of data not already used to make the model.
"A model that explains all existing data tends to have negligible predictive power". You're going to have to explain to me that a bit more.
Model of what?
Architects use all existing data to plan future buildings. Meteorologists use all existing data to predict the weather. Astronomers use all existing data to predict sunrise and sunset, the motion of planets, eclipses etc. Manufacturers use all existing data to produce goods, distributors to get those goods to the consumer, engineers to build roads, dams and bridges, etc. etc.
Seems to me that using all existing data is the way to go when producing a model.
As you say, when there's valuable data not included in a model, the model will fail at some point. The trick is acquiring the data and knowing what is useful to include in the model.
@@ziploc2000 Yeah so generally using all available data to construct a model is a good thing, but we don't tend to expect that our model will capture every variation in values. The short answer is to search "overfitting" and to take a data set of two variables from online and create a scatter plot in excel, then make a trend line and choose polyline and display R^2. Step by step, increase the order of the polyline. Note that the R^2 increases and the fit is better as the order increases, but the shape becomes more erratic, and changes dramatically where there are fewer values. This kind of thing happens when you try to fit your model too closely to the data, usually due to randomness in errors in the data that you're trying to fit.
In the case of a multiple input regression model, for example, we may have several input variables x1 to xk, and a single output variable y. The i^th data point has coordinates (x1[i], x2[i], ..., xk[i], y[i]), for i = 1 to N (N data points to use to relate the input variables to our output variable). Our model then looks like
Y = f(x1, x2, ..., xk), where Y is the fitted output, and y[i] = f(x1[i], x2[i], ..., xk[i]) + e[i]. Here, e[i] is the error in the model between the measured output and the fitted model. We generally want to minimise this error over all data points, typically using a least squares approach.
However, we accept that there can be measurement errors that are "random" and unavoidable. It takes judgment to decide whether our model is trying to account for too much of the random variation and therefore trying to guess what the randomness will be like for future data. With multiple input regression models, we often stick to a handful of the most significant inputs and some interaction terms, since they have the greatest effect on the output. We can add more variables and get a better correlation coefficient and a better fit, but it often leads to worse prediction of future data because it starts trying to use random variation as part of the model. It's similar to why we rarely use regression models that are more complicated than a linear model. We start getting pretty weird behaviour for points for which we don't specifically have data already, making it unreliable and generally failing to predict the output of future data.
In terms of God discussions, this would be like saying God is the cause of everything, and that since miracles are possible, then God could make anything happen that He wanted. So can we predict what God will do? Well it could be anything, or nothing. It could also be at any time, for reasons beyond our comprehension. On one hand, we resign that His ways are not our ways and so cannot be understood - might as well be considered as random, and on the other hand we insist that He is the explanation for absolutely everything (with the possible exception of sin i guess depending on who you ask of course), so our model is Reality = f(God) with no error term. I mean, Jesus is coming back in our lifetimes (Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled), so we have some predictions. Apparently generations can last 2000 years or more?
Since you claim to be an individual who loves statistical methods so much. I am curious if you have ever read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, and if so, what you think of his techniques to help us steer clear of using and referencing stats and data to support personal bias?
Hahaha, gods I can already see a gaggle of Twitter Philosophers typing out response threads to this...
Disbelief - not rejecting OR accepting a claim.
But I thought Billy Joel proved "We didn't start the fire" Check and Mate.... - I mean I'll get me coat...
Never let any religion mislead you.
“Many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many; and as lawlessness spreads, men’s love for one another will grow cold. But the man who holds out to the end will be saved. ” - (Jesus the Messiah at Matthew 24: 11-13) -
“When you pray, go into a room by yourself, and shut the door. Pray to your Father who is there in the secret place; and your Father who sees what is secret will reward you.
In your prayers do not go babbling on like the heathen, who imagine that the more they say the more likely they are to be heard.
Do not imitate them. Your Father knows what your needs are before you ask him.
This is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
Your kingdom come; your will be done, on earth as in heaven,
Give us today our daily bread,
And forgive us the wrong we have done, as we have forgiven those who have wronged us.
And do not bring us to the test, but save us from the evil one.
For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, for ever.
Amen.
For if you forgive others the wrongs they have done, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, then the wrongs you have done will not be forgiven by your Father.” - (Jesus at Matthew 6: 6-15) -
“Pass no judgement, and you will not be judged. For as you judge others, so you will yourselves be judged, and whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt back to you.” - (at Matthew 7: 1-2) -
“Truly I tell you; if anyone obeys my teaching he shall never know what it is to die.” - (at John 8: 51) -
“Always treat others as you would like them to treat you: that is the Law and the Prophets.
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it.
Beware of false prophets, men who come to you dressed up as sheep while underneath they are savage wolves. You will recognize them by the fruits they bear.” - (Matthew 7: 12-16) -
“I am the gate; anyone who comes into the fold through me shall be safe. He shall go in and out and shall find pasturage.
The thief comes only to steal, to kill, to destroy; I have come that men may have life, and may have it in all its fullness.” - (John 10: 9-10) -
Beware of false prophets, men who come to you dressed up as sheep while underneath they are savage wolves. You will recognize them by the fruits they bear.” - (Matthew 7: 12-16) -
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” - (Matthew 7: 21) -
“I am the resurrection and I am life. If a man has faith in me, even though he dies, he shall come to life; and no one who is alive and has faith shall ever die.” - (John 11: 25-26) -
“I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world” - (John 12: 47) -
“Whoever then will acknowledge me before men, I will acknowledge him before my Father in heaven; and whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.” - (Matthew 10: 32-34) -
“I am the way; I am the truth and I am life; no one comes to the Father except by me. If you knew me you would know my Father too.” - (John 14: 6-7) -
“An expert in the law, [a leading religious Pharisee] tested him with this question: ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ He answered, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind. That is the greatest commandment. It comes first. The second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. Everything in the Law and the Prophets hangs on these two commandments.’” - (Matthew 22: 35-40) -
“There is no greater love than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends.” - (John 15: 13) -
“Do not call any man on earth ‘father’; for you have one Father and he is in heaven. Nor must you be called ‘teacher’; you have one Teacher, the Messiah.” - (Matthew 23: 9-10) -
“Take care that no one misleads you: For many will come claiming my name…” - (Matthew 24: 4) -
“Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And be assured, I am with you always, to the end of time.” - (Matthew 28: 20) -
Yours, in true Spirit and in our one given prayer, 2gointruth, on Monday the 3rd of April 2023: - (Matthew 5: 14-16) - Where every minute (of both day and night) can be a new beginning for any one of us. Let it always be you. Pray to God often, as prescribed above, before it is too late.
Everything you posted below is from a religious book lol
@@drsatan9617
Never let any religion mislead you. “Many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many; and as lawlessness spreads, men’s love for one another will grow cold. But the man who holds out to the end will be saved. ” - (Jesus the Messiah at Matthew 24: 11-13) -
“When you pray, go into a room by yourself, and shut the door. Pray to your Father who is there in the secret place; and your Father who sees what is secret will reward you.
In your prayers do not go babbling on like the heathen, who imagine that the more they say the more likely they are to be heard.
Do not imitate them. Your Father knows what your needs are before you ask him.
This is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
Your kingdom come; your will be done, on earth as in heaven,
Give us today our daily bread,
And forgive us the wrong we have done, as we have forgiven those who have wronged us.
And do not bring us to the test, but save us from the evil one.
For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, for ever.
Amen.
For if you forgive others the wrongs they have done, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, then the wrongs you have done will not be forgiven by your Father.” - (Jesus at Matthew 6: 6-15) -
“Pass no judgement, and you will not be judged. For as you judge others, so you will yourselves be judged, and whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt back to you.” - (at Matthew 7: 1-2) -
“Truly I tell you; if anyone obeys my teaching he shall never know what it is to die.” - (at John 8: 51) -
“Always treat others as you would like them to treat you: that is the Law and the Prophets.
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it.
Beware of false prophets, men who come to you dressed up as sheep while underneath they are savage wolves. You will recognize them by the fruits they bear.” - (Matthew 7: 12-16) -
“I am the gate; anyone who comes into the fold through me shall be safe. He shall go in and out and shall find pasturage.
The thief comes only to steal, to kill, to destroy; I have come that men may have life, and may have it in all its fullness.” - (John 10: 9-10) -
Beware of false prophets, men who come to you dressed up as sheep while underneath they are savage wolves. You will recognize them by the fruits they bear.” - (Matthew 7: 12-16) -
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” - (Matthew 7: 21) -
“I am the resurrection and I am life. If a man has faith in me, even though he dies, he shall come to life; and no one who is alive and has faith shall ever die.” - (John 11: 25-26) -
“I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world” - (John 12: 47) -
“Whoever then will acknowledge me before men, I will acknowledge him before my Father in heaven; and whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.” - (Matthew 10: 32-34) -
“I am the way; I am the truth and I am life; no one comes to the Father except by me. If you knew me you would know my Father too.” - (John 14: 6-7) -
“An expert in the law, [a leading religious Pharisee] tested him with this question: ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ He answered, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind. That is the greatest commandment. It comes first. The second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. Everything in the Law and the Prophets hangs on these two commandments.’” - (Matthew 22: 35-40) -
“There is no greater love than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends.” - (John 15: 13) -
“Do not call any man on earth ‘father’; for you have one Father and he is in heaven. Nor must you be called ‘teacher’; you have one Teacher, the Messiah.” - (Matthew 23: 9-10) -
“Take care that no one misleads you: For many will come claiming my name…” - (Matthew 24: 4) -
“Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And be assured, I am with you always, to the end of time.” - (Matthew 28: 20) -
Yours, in true Spirit and in our one given prayer, 2gointruth, on Monday the 3rd of April 2023: - (Matthew 5: 14-16) - Where every minute (of both day and night) can be a new beginning for any one of us. Let it always be you. Pray to God often, as prescribed above, before it is too late.
Never let any religion mislead you. “Many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many; and as lawlessness spreads, men’s love for one another will grow cold. But the man who holds out to the end will be saved. ” - (Jesus the Messiah at Matthew 24: 11-13) -
“When you pray, go into a room by yourself, and shut the door. Pray to your Father who is there in the secret place; and your Father who sees what is secret will reward you.
In your prayers do not go babbling on like the heathen, who imagine that the more they say the more likely they are to be heard.
Do not imitate them. Your Father knows what your needs are before you ask him.
This is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
Your kingdom come; your will be done, on earth as in heaven,
Give us today our daily bread,
And forgive us the wrong we have done, as we have forgiven those who have wronged us.
And do not bring us to the test, but save us from the evil one.
For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, for ever.
Amen.
For if you forgive others the wrongs they have done, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, then the wrongs you have done will not be forgiven by your Father.” - (Jesus at Matthew 6: 6-15) -
“Pass no judgement, and you will not be judged. For as you judge others, so you will yourselves be judged, and whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt back to you.” - (at Matthew 7: 1-2) -
“Truly I tell you; if anyone obeys my teaching he shall never know what it is to die.” - (at John 8: 51) -
“Always treat others as you would like them to treat you: that is the Law and the Prophets.
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it.
Beware of false prophets, men who come to you dressed up as sheep while underneath they are savage wolves. You will recognize them by the fruits they bear.” - (Matthew 7: 12-16) -
“I am the gate; anyone who comes into the fold through me shall be safe. He shall go in and out and shall find pasturage.
The thief comes only to steal, to kill, to destroy; I have come that men may have life, and may have it in all its fullness.” - (John 10: 9-10) -
Beware of false prophets, men who come to you dressed up as sheep while underneath they are savage wolves. You will recognize them by the fruits they bear.” - (Matthew 7: 12-16) -
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” - (Matthew 7: 21) -
“I am the resurrection and I am life. If a man has faith in me, even though he dies, he shall come to life; and no one who is alive and has faith shall ever die.” - (John 11: 25-26) -
“I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world” - (John 12: 47) -
“Whoever then will acknowledge me before men, I will acknowledge him before my Father in heaven; and whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.” - (Matthew 10: 32-34) -
“I am the way; I am the truth and I am life; no one comes to the Father except by me. If you knew me you would know my Father too.” - (John 14: 6-7) -
“An expert in the law, [a leading religious Pharisee] tested him with this question: ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ He answered, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind. That is the greatest commandment. It comes first. The second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. Everything in the Law and the Prophets hangs on these two commandments.’” - (Matthew 22: 35-40) -
“There is no greater love than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends.” - (John 15: 13) -
“Do not call any man on earth ‘father’; for you have one Father and he is in heaven. Nor must you be called ‘teacher’; you have one Teacher, the Messiah.” - (Matthew 23: 9-10) -
“Take care that no one misleads you: For many will come claiming my name…” - (Matthew 24: 4) -
“Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And be assured, I am with you always, to the end of time.” - (Matthew 28: 20) -
Yours, in true Spirit and in our one given prayer, 2gointruth, on Monday the 3rd of April 2023: - (Matthew 5: 14-16) - Where every minute (of both day and night) can be a new beginning for any one of us. Let it always be you. Pray to God often, as prescribed above, before it is too late.
It’s actually not guilty until proven guilty
In reference to the weakness of the cat in the drawer example, I wouldn't say "the null hypothesis must be constructed in a way that it couldn't be confirmed but it can be falsified".
Those are the qualities of a null hypothesis, but you don't have to construct one for this question.
If you can run an experiment that resolves an issue by proving all alternatives false (as in the cat example), then do that. It's a better and more convincing result.
You are forced to use the null hypothesis if that is impossible because you can't collect enough information to conclusively falsify all alternatives. That's the case for most of the interesting questions in life because we usually have incomplete information, but for the cat question it would be a mistake to insist that you have to formulate a different question that would have a propper null hypothesis. The cat question as presented is a perfectly acceptable, testable scientific question.
I prefer the search for the Loch Ness Monster as an example for this explanation. It's intuative that not finding it after a 100 year search could not prove its not there, but conclusively finding it just once would disprove the null. So, a sensible person should assume its not there until its found.
I agree. I didn’t find this video very helpful. Too convoluted imo. Your practical explanation is clearer. Also we have plenty of examples irl of null hypothesis being disproven. For instance, “innocent until proven guilty”, that’s the theoretical principle. In practice a lot of people get accused on (flimsy) evidence and it’s up to them to prove they are innocent.
@@pansepot1490 the issue with that one is that its not so much a method to get as close to the truth as possible, it's more of a practical approach based on the idea that it's better to let 10 guilty people walk free than to convict an innocent person.
I can think of a scenario where after a trial a person is not proven guilty, but there's been enough evidence that a reasonable person would believe they probably did it. Probably isn't good enough though, so in that situation the court should treat them as innocent just to be on the safe side. It's not about what the court believes it's about what the court can be sure of.
All these hypotheticals have their strengths an weaknesses. One issue Matt has I think is that he's been doing this so long he's already said all these things hundreds of times already. He's trying to find new ways to say the same ideas, but he's already found the "best" ways to say it. Alternative wordings tend to be more woffly and more confusing as they aren't as tightly constructed to illustrate the point he is making.
I would always value a better argument over a newer one. Even if I've heard it before.
Matt,
I'd love to listen to this in PODCAST form. I hope you will consider putting atheist debates on podcast! It would be amazing and convenient!
7:44 - You could say there _is_ a connection between vaccines and Autism, then study a ridiculously small and specifically selected group of people who all have Autism, publish this study (to be used as evidence in an ongoing lawsuit in which the law firm _funding_ the study is representing the parents of the above mentioned study group, frighten millions of people into erroneously believing in a causal relationship between vaccines (MMR specifically) and Autism, causing millions of parents _not_ to vaccinate their children, resulting in thousands of avoidable _deaths,_ and ultimately...permanently...lose your license to ever practice medicine again, due to blatant violations of medical ethics and proper scientific methodology.
P.S. An interesting thing about the Null Hypothesis is that, for _any_ given topic, it doesn't even _need_ to exist until the Alternative Hypothesis is offered. "For all things, real and/or imaginary, the Null Hypothesis _itself_ doesn't exist until the existence of something is proposed...at which point, in the absence of evidence, the Null Hypothesis is the rational default." 😉
Hi Matt! - thanks for doing this video (i must have missed it) - I dissgree with you argumentation in this video. I'll do a response! Thanks for doing this though, it is thorough, I just don't agree with the totality of what you have said here, but rather do it in writing, I will record it :)
The analogy that I've previously used involves sticks. Your perception of the world is a stick. When you're someone who values believing things that are true, then your goal is to have your perception of the world match reality as closely as possible; ie have the strongest stick. The question then becomes: "How do you know you have the strongest stick?" The answer: You try to break it; ie you question it and try to prove your perception wrong. If you can break it, you didn't have the strongest stick, BUT the new stick you get from the process IS stronger than the last one, because this new stick can't be broken the same way. Within this analogy, the Null Hypothesis is always your starting stick. In my experience, theists have yet to even bend this starting stick in their attempts to shatter it, which is quite a poor showing if I do say so myself.
Your analogy is flawed. Your stick might have been the strongest stick, but it doesn't follow that the strongest stick cannot be broken. It could be true that all sticks can be broken, and the one you had was simply the strongest from that set. The new stick might be as strong, or weaker, than the previous stick, but just because it cannot be broken in the same way doesn't mean that you have a stronger stick than before.
@@tussk. There is something you're getting quite wrong: If you break your current stick and replace it with a new stick that cannot be broken in all the ways the previous stick could not be but also cannot be broken in the same way the previous one was, then it is, by definition, an equivalent or stronger stick. It's a standard computer science principle by which one compares potential solutions to a problem. When challenging one's own beliefs, if you get demonstrably corrected on something and adjust accordingly then you now believe fewer false things and more true things. Ie your perception of the world matches reality that much more (Ignoring adopting mistaken beliefs for the purposes of brevity). I also disagree with the statement "It could be true that all sticks can be broken", as I would (loosely since I'm not thinking about it too hard rn) define the strongest stick as "The set of all statements about the universe that are true." If one possesses some perception of the world that matches reality 1:1, then they possess the mythical strongest stick. Excali-stick, if you will.
At the end of the day, the idea of "Find the strongest stick" is more of a target to move toward than a goal to achieve, as it's a realistically unattainable one. It's an NP-Complete problem. It isn't clear how you can optimally find the strongest stick, nor how you can even be sure you've actually found the darn thing once you've got it, but that's the nature of NP-Complete problems: you just have to do your best.
@@UltraXan My point was that if you break the stick and are rewarded with another than cannot be broken, then you will not progress. If you shed one false belief and now hold the belief that you are in possession of the facts, then you are no better off than when you started. An unbreakable stick isn't a asset, it's a hindrance to the pursuit of truth.
"I once believed that all swans were black, but I have seen a white swan. Now I know that all swans are either black or white"
All you have done is replaced one false belief with another, with the added disadvantage that the new belief is superior to the last, and as such much more difficult to discard.
@@tussk. Oh you are SO close to getting it, but I can see that you're trying.
"My point was that if you break the stick and are rewarded with another than cannot be broken, then you will not progress."
- I never said the new stick couldn't be broken. I said "It cannot be broken IN THE SAME WAY THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS." The goal is to constantly find ways to break your current stick (To paraphrase Aron Ra, you improve by seeking out the flaws in your current understanding).
"If you shed one false belief and now hold the belief that you are in possession of the facts, then you are no better off than when you started."
- Everyone thinks they are in possession of the facts. Aside from a few fringe religious nuts who seem hell-bent on believing things even when they know they're wrong, no rational agent believes something they also know to be incorrect. They CAN be honestly mistaken, however, and that's what we're trying to minimize.
"All you have done is replaced one false belief with another, with the added disadvantage that the new belief is superior to the last, and as such much more difficult to discard."
- That's not a disadvantage! That's the point! It's the key factor about the stick-breaking algorithm: the second belief is *less* false than the previous one. Eventually, in a future iteration of the stick-breaking loop, one might ask "Have I ever even seen a black swan? Do I have a justification for holding the belief that such swans exist?" in an attempt to break their current stick, and then seek out an answer for whether they are justified holding their belief. I actually just looked it up and, as it turns out, Black swans DO exist! They're rare, but they're real.
Let's see if this idea helps you make sense of things: “All models are wrong, some are useful.”
And some additional context/reframing: In computer science, you have problems and solutions to those problems. Take the infamous "traveling salesman" problem, where you have a network of cities and the goal is to find the {shortest} path that [passes through every city once] and [starts and ends in the same city]. What I've put in [square brackets] are what define a valid solution to the problem and what I've put in {curly brackets} is what you're trying to optimize.
If you draw a path through every city in your map that starts and stops in the same place, then that path you've drawn is a VALID solution to the problem - ie a stick. If you then find another valid path whose total travel distance is SHORTER than the previous one you've drawn, you've found another solution that better fits the criteria for the optimal solution - ie a stronger stick. Since you have this shorter path, you no longer have a need to hold on to that previous path and it can be safely discarded - ie you broke the previous stick. For any given instance of the traveling salesman problem, there IS an optimal solution - aka a shortest possible path, aka a strongest stick - but because you'd need to compare it against every other potential solution to be sure you've got the optimal path, the time complexity skyrockets and verifying that you have the optimal path becomes unrealistic. That's part of what makes the Traveling Salesman problem NP-Complete.
At the end of they day, the only way you can get close to holding as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible is if you honestly question 1) the beliefs that are presented to you and 2) the beliefs you already hold. In other words, keep trying to break sticks. You might never find the strongest stick, but if you keep breaking your current stick and swapping it out for a stronger variant like you're playing an RPG, then there's a pretty good chance that, over time, you'll have a much stronger stick than the people around you.
@@UltraXan Nope. Just accept that your analogy is flawed. Having a new belief doesn't mean that it's true just because it replaced a false belief. They can both be false. You don't appear to understand that. I could start out with the belief that all frogs are green, and then be shown a blue frog, so now I know that all frogs are green or blue. Until I am shown a red frog.
Knowing that not all frogs are green doesn't mean that knowing all frogs are green, blue or red is true.
Great debate Matt, keep up the great work 🤘🏻
Matt, you need to adjust the spill settings in your chroma key effect. There's still green reflections on the sides of your head. It kind of kills the whole radio studio illusion.
I'm not an expert, but if the green screen is reflecting off your head it means it's too close and/or too brightly lit. Perhaps you can fix that with the same tools that fix green hair, but like I said I wouldn't know.
I thought it was the on air light :p
Matt just needs to use a greener background. 😎
Well no, it doesn't. It just looks like he has a green light. His source of light not matching the shadows on the background though, that hints at green screen.
my favorite quote that i heard recently,
the act of observation is the act of fact creation.
great video. gg
According to that logic we create dinosaurs every time we find and observe a fossil. And we create billions of stars and galaxies every time JWT zooms in on a new patch of sky.
@@pansepot1490 Not exactly, he said we create the fact that those exist, not that we create the subject itself that the fact is about. Creating a fact can be viewed as synonymous to allowing for new information to be part of our knowledge.
This sounds dangerously close to something Deepak Chopra might say.
edit: to clarify "the act of observation is in fact the act of creation." Sounds an awful lot like something Deepak Chopra might say. just have to slightly rearrange the words and add "in" to get there.
@@pansepot1490 not necessarily
idealistic bullshit. The only thing you create through observation is observation.
Thanks for your informational videos Matt. I really appreciate it.
The amount of potion X a person drinks does not change how far they can walk in a day. The more I pray, the farther that person can walk in the day. In mathematics, it is a very easy equation to define. ax = 0by + C. Here we see zero is not really a number, as the value of y changes, the value of x is unaffected. You may be forced to use calculus, but you can even divide Y by zero, and the value of x is unaffected buy all values y. Once we state this is natural language, see our null hypothesis: any 'a' amount of 'x' is equal to null amounts of 'b' and 'y' added to C. The only challenge here, as Matt showed us so very well, is identifying when you are working with one, like prayer or faith. So identify when you can change the quantity of one of your factors to 0 AND infinity, or (n / 0), and you are all but guaranteed to be facing a Null Hypothesis. Math nerd with a logic fetish, what can I say? I will never get enough of Matt's argument deconstructions, even if he runs out of new video ideas :)
Amen, Matt. Preach it, brother.
What happens when a believer believes that reality is a subset of gods?
Weird that so much of this talk would be about Billy Joel, but okay.
It was always burning since the world's been turning
@@stephenmudry7826 I think we can treat that as the null hypothesis.
you better believe that Billy and his friend started the fire, the evidence is all over the place
Duh!
Education is greater than Opinions and Beliefs combined.
E>(O+B) =Quantum logic
You don't have a right to ignore the fundamental laws of physics!
Heisenberg and Schrodinger are binary equations for Christ sake!
The best we will ever have is reasonable truth.
"Heisenberg +Schrodinger ÷ Occam's razor = reasonable truth."-Aaron Kuntze
Pantheism: everything is connected everything is divine.
Asking me to explain God is like asking a fish to explain the water.
Hi Matt, always brilliant
I agree with you Matt, atheists are proclaiming nothing. I remain unconvinced about the existence of any god. In the very unlikely event that I would meet, or encounter a being that could demonstrate god like abilities, I would not feel any need to worship it, or even take it's advice.
matt is a timid agnostic. real atheists (me) can easily prove that no gods exist
@@scambammer6102 Good for you. Now is your chance, please feel free to prove it. I would love to hear it.
@@scambammer6102 God in the absolute sense is not falsifiable. However, that is never the version of God any religion promotes, the God that writes (inspires) scriptures and teachings, often makes claims that are falsifiable. and since every scripture claims to be the infallible word of God, and the proof of his existence in the form described in said scriptures. Then proving their fallibility disproves the version of God they posit.
@@lkamiyorgen6623 wtf is “god in the absolute sense”? Sounds like a bunch of words somebody made up, which can be falsified.
@@scambammer6102 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Go!!!!!
The default position should be "potato".
It's a great base for many things.
Makes me reconsider the religion in the show: Dinosaurs. Their religion: The Great Potato
@@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC It exists and goes in many meals. Helps to survive.
So based on your reading of the definition of null hypothesis at the beginning of the video, are you misusing the term. This seems exactly the same as people who use entropy to mean disorder, decay, and chaos.
OMG - God isn't an invention of human language and storytelling because of the null hypothesis. As Lawrence Krauss has said, the arguments against God are rooted in common sense and not deductive logic. Just as most Christians did not come to their religion by apologetics, most atheists did not come to their resolve because of philosophical arguments.
Yeah, no. Most atheists are so because you start life not believing in a god, and never heard anything to convince them there is such a thing. Which is exactly the null hypothesis and the alternative not being supported. It doesn't matter whether formal logic or philosophy is involved, the majority of atheists simply stayed in the default position.
Damn, I watched a while ago and it wouldn't let me comment. Thankyou Matt!👍💖💙🥰✌
The null hypothesis is always stated in the negative. This is because you have to be able to prove something is indeed true. Technically speaking, the word “hypothesis” is a Greek word that means “an assumption subject to verification”. The null hypothesis is what we test with statistics
It cannot be a negative living as if a god does not exist even if you make no claims.It is a positive.
@abelcainsbrother
There are several criticisms of the null hypothesis, which include:
Lack of proof: The null hypothesis can never be proven, only rejected. This means that even if the null hypothesis is rejected, we cannot conclude with absolute certainty that the alternative hypothesis is true. This has led some researchers to argue that the null hypothesis is not a very useful or informative concept.
Dichotomous thinking: The null hypothesis assumes a dichotomous thinking in which the only two options are either to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. This approach can be limiting, especially when dealing with complex phenomena that cannot be reduced to a simple yes or no question.
Misinterpretation: There is a risk of misinterpreting the results of statistical tests when the null hypothesis is rejected. For example, some researchers might interpret a significant result as evidence that the alternative hypothesis is true, when in fact it could simply mean that the null hypothesis was not a good fit for the data.
Ignores effect size: The null hypothesis only focuses on statistical significance, ignoring the effect size of the difference between groups or conditions. This can be problematic as a statistically significant result may not necessarily be practically significant.
Assumes no effect: The null hypothesis assumes that there is no effect or relationship between the variables being studied, which may not always be a realistic assumption. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to use a directional or non-directional alternative hypothesis that proposes a specific effect or relationship.
Overall, while the null hypothesis is a fundamental concept in statistical inference, it is not without its limitations and criticisms. It is important for researchers to carefully consider the strengths and weaknesses of the null hypothesis and to use it appropriately in the context of their research questions and hypotheses.
@@ryanhoffman5477 All of this is irrelevant once somebody takes action and starts living as if a god does not exist. One cannot claim the null hypothesis when they are gambling with their life they are correct by living as an atheist.It is not a null hypothesis position,it is action based on believing atheists who offer no evidence they are correct.The person believes atheists so much that they live as an atheist.
Faith is action and so living ones life as an atheist is blind faith due to atheism being the only group in the world that offers no evidence. Think of the wackiest of conspiracy theories and atheism is below them when it comes to having evidence you're correct.
This proves atheism is the wrong way to be living but because atheists reject people who offer evidence but believe people who offer no evidence they do not go by evidence.
@@abelcainsbrother
Friedrich Nietzsche was a philosopher who famously declared that "God is dead," and he believed that atheism represented a major challenge to traditional morality and values. However, Nietzsche's views on atheism were complex and nuanced, and he did not simply reject atheism outright.
Instead, Nietzsche saw atheism as a natural consequence of modernity, and he recognized that it represented a necessary step towards intellectual freedom and autonomy. However, he also warned that the loss of traditional religious beliefs and values could have a corrosive effect on human society, leading to nihilism and moral relativism.
Nietzsche believed that traditional religious beliefs had provided a framework for meaning and purpose in people's lives, and that the loss of this framework could lead to a sense of existential despair and a lack of direction. He also believed that the rejection of traditional morality could lead to a situation in which people were free to do whatever they wanted, without any sense of responsibility or accountability.
@@ryanhoffman5477 I definitely believe atheism leads to nihilism which is why atheists refuse to go by evidence and so they do not know how to follow evidence to determine if something is true or not.
Atheists reject people who offer evidence and they are impressed by people for coming up with clever ways to reject,deny and explain away any and all evidence for God or anything having to do with the supernatural.They do this all while they sit there not only with no evidence but no desire to have any evidence. No desire at all to make sure they are correct to be living as an atheist.
They cannot tell atheism is the wrong way to be living due to a lack of evidence. They believe their atheist hero's who offer no evidence and explain to them that atheists are excluded and don't need any evidence.
Instead of realizing this atheist has no credibility due to a lack of evidence they look to them as arbiters of truth and great philosophers.
They wrongly call themselves skeptics when they are denialists of God. Atheists live to ask people for evidence just so they can reject it all. It makes them feel good to ignore evidence. It is atheists who need to learn why evidence is so important in determining the truth from a non-truth.
Perhaps something like "there has never been a cat in my drawer". Finding the cat disproves it, not finding it right now doesn't necessarily disprove it?
So it's like Schrodinger's cat?
no
@@suleymanbabak1973 thanks dick. Care to explain why?
no, it's like Einstein's hamster.
We didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world's been turning.
😂 Couldn't help myself.
Thank you.
Dear Matt Dillahunty,
what is the null hypothesis on how the universe came into existence
A. An all-powerful nothing is capable of bringing the universe into existence (which science textbooks say breaks the first law of thermodynamics)
B. not A.
sincerely,
Just a Nobody
Hello nobody.
The laws of thermodynamics apply WITHIN a closed system.
The null hypothesis is that there is no connection between a god and the origin of the universe. Feel free to falsify that.
That is a lot of empty philosophical theorizing, it is basicaly all about "this is how we atheists do it", but nothing about "this is how it should be done and why". 🤔
It works best as it is, in this case. With no good correlation between any gods and reality, we really only have 1 choice of null hypothesis: "no gods exist". This statement is the only statement that all god claims can be bounced off of equally: whether someone comes up and says "Well Zeus exists" or "well Agni exists," you can put them up against the same hypothesis. If any other claim holds true, the null hypothesis is discarded.
Is there some better way we're not seeing?
@@TheManWithNoHands Well, you can also put them up against each other and compare them. What is wrong with that idea?
Wait? What if the cat in the sock draw is both 'There' and 'Not there'? (Neither alive nor dead?) 🤔 🤣
..why do you have your own page?
Just to annoy people.
Atheism is the antithesis to God's existence, a dialectical position. Affirming the negative by denying the positive.
@Anon Ymous What script? Google “Hegelian dialectic” and counter argument.
@Anon Ymous Hegelian dialectic requires an antithesis to be established. You lose again.
@Anon Ymous Justify your dispute that no anthesis is required for the dialectical position of atheism. If you can’t you’re just lying again.
@Anon Ymous Now you’re just plain lying and gaslighting. (in Hegelian philosophy) the negation of the thesis as the second stage in the process of dialectical. You’re caught lying, if that’s the best you can do for atheism, then why bother?
@Anon Ymous Wow look at you go. You’re waiting for a coherent argument as you claim you make no claims, while disputing/ denying any dialectical antithesis exists. So that you can dodge having to present an argument. Please stop lying about Hegel, we know the “synthesis of opposites” requires an antithesis REGARDlESS of Hegel’s nomenclature.
ATHEIST SMASH!
Dillahunty demonstrates that he simply doesn't understand the meaning of "null hypothesis," by his example of the imagined case of the cat in his sock drawer, and, instead, shows that he understands it to mean "proving, disproving, a negative." the "null hypothesis" has to do with eliminating the possibility that chance alone explains statistical differences between population data sets, and I don't mean, necessarily, human populations. what part does chance alone play in explaining statistical differences in the cat in the sock drawer example? (I confess that I didn't know what it meant, although I'd heard of it, until I looked it up after I realized that Dillahunty wasn't adhering to his own definition.) and, aside from confusing something like a mathematical proof, about which we can be absolutely certain, surely one can "prove" that a given suspect is innocent: She was in France when the murder was committed in Japan, witnesses, including the victim, said that it had been carried out by a 5 foot 6 to 5 foot 10 inch white man when the suspect was 6 foot 4 and dark-skinned Black, the DNA is from the semen left on the victim different from that of the suspect . . . etc. the first time I heard Dillahunty debate, I thought, this is dumb person, and then, at other times, he sounds smart, but, in following times times dumb and utterly ill-informed, and, although I'm a Christian now, I thought this back when I was an atheist.
everything he says, after regurgitates Wikipedia's definition of "null hypothesis" demonstrates that he's confusing it with disproving a negative. he should ask someone he trusts, someone with a real understand if it, to watch this, and then, when he's been told that he's an idiot, he should take it down, and move to a cabin, in the woods, with no electricity or running water, in Alaska, as far as possible from other human beings.
and the fact that his followers, who posted, thank him for erudition on the subject show that they're just as dumb, or dumber, than he. HE CORRECTLY DEFINED IT AT THE START AND THEN SPENT THE WHOLE VIDEO CONFUSING IT WITH DISPROVING A NEGATIVE.
Instead of being a keyboard warrior you could've actually listened to what he _really_ said, rather than making a fool out of yourself by attacking something he explicitly explained wasn't a proper null hypothesis...
Also, he didn't say innocence can't be proven in any case, you tool. He said it _might_ not be possible in a case, which is a big reason to use innocent as the default position.
Everything you said shows you're an arrogant idiot who isn't even capable of watching the video they're attacking. Next time, if you feel the blind need to attack what someone is saying, rather than the person themselves for ulterior motives, actually listen to what they say...
@@nagranoth_ he continually talks about "null hypotheses," while never, not once, giving, or referring to, a single example of a true null hypothesis. it seems to me that you're saying that he implied that he knows the difference, but if, as I observed, he was, instead, throughout, taking about disproving a negative, instead, why did he bring up null hypotheses in the first place, and use the term so often, instead of merely talking about disproving a negative, other than sound smarter than he is, or wink ironically at those of us who know the difference, or, in my case, just learned it, to say, my core, atheist audience are mostly morons, anyway?
Aron Ra showed a list on one of his YTs of the supposed prophecies that, he claimed, Jesus failed to fulfill, as the Messiah, with the very first one being that the Messiah would be a Jew, a wink that Aron Ra is man who will tell any lie to further his atheistic crusade.
I repeat my question, in case you've forgotten it but continue to read my post, WHY DID DILLAHUNTY PRETEND TO TALK ABOUT "NULL HYPOTHESIS," WHEN TALKING ABOUT DISPROVING A NEGATIVE, INSTEAD?
I honestly want to hear you defend all the transgender stuff. Forgive me for putting it so crudely and ambiguously.
Stop being atheist and believe in Jesus bro. Its your only hope trust me braa aint got no reason to lie to you feel me.. i be reading the Bible bruh its all in der u gotta to repent and then trust Jesus feel me. You talking crazy stuff bruh fro real on momma hahah what daaaaa
Ayn Rands metaphysics and epistemology is what a rational defense of Atheism lacks.
OK, this one actually made me giggle, thanks for that.
Her objectivism and individualism are laughable, and usually defended by people that have never read what she wrote, but going by what someone wrote in a right-wing blog or video. Not saying that's your case, just my anecdotal experience.
@@SouthernMenace Im a student in the Ayn Rand institute, have read all of her non fiction and fiction , and most people like me have had the exact opposite experience the people who are AGAINST her philosophy have never interacted with it. But to your anecdote there are alot of people especially conservative/right wingers (two concepts which she called invalid and disliked almost all who took on those ideas) who claim to like SOME of her positions without realizing that its all an interconnected philosophy. Shes an atheist for the same reason shes an individualist for the same reason she supports laiseez faire capitalism for the same reason she supports rational egoism for the same reason she wrote her novels for the same reasons she takes her epistemic views. Have a good day and i suggest consuming some ayn rand content . Maybe checkout the Atheism content on the Ayn Rand Institute youtube channel
eww
@@Mr.Witness Nice, it's good to finally meet someone who has actually read her.
Since my main focus is literature, and philosophy is just a supporting hobby of mine, I've had more experience with her fiction than with her philosophical writings. No disrespect, but I don't consider her good literature, and this is not a polemic stance in canon discussions and general studies.
I do appreciate the fact that she, as a woman, got politically engaged in a period where this was not common, and I am in general terms favorable to some of her positions. But yeah, I do think she's not very sophisticated in her writings.
@@SouthernMenace Why do you say that? What do you mean by sophisticated?
this is matt just shooting from the hip!
matt, your use of the term null hypothesis has no resemblance to its actual meaning or professional use.
it's got nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty".
further, there is ZERO "default position"!
when a person forms a doxastic attitude about a proposition, that's perhaps an "initial position", but certainly there's no default since there's no necessary attitude one must or even should have.
moreover, onus probandi is *discursive* not *epistemic* and warrant and epistemic responsibility falls on every single disposition-haver, every single one including atheists.
after all these years of engaging this subject, you'd think you at least ONCE venture to study at least something about epistemology rather than just making shit up as you go.
guess not though.
What do you mean no evidence for God...? ALL evidence is evidence for God; it's evidence that there exists an abstract principle of reason that ensures all facts are consistent with each other such that evidence can either confirm or deny something. Evidence is a term of proof which is ONLY a logical construct. What you admit by mentioning the word "evidence" is that logic determines the facts. And this logic exists everywhere at all times and controls all events. It is just another way of describing God.
That definition of god does not apply to a great many gods. It's also just a repetition of the claim that god created everything, not evidence that god created everything, i.e. begging the question fallacy. Get outta here with that presup nonsense.
That's just begging the question and something anyone can claim for anything they assert is a god or something of the like. You actually have to define god in a coherent, unambiguous and internally consistent way first, THEN use any evidence to prove that it's indicative of this entity and demonstrate the mechanisms of how it does that.
So first you must establish something as fact , that’s * where the god claim falls apart , you can’t claim the claims are facts cause they are consistent with each other , claims need proof to be established as facts
Edits inserting that’s
What do you mean no evidence for Murstggullonnia...?
ALL evidence is evidence for Murstggullonnia;.
See how that God nonsense works ?
Think I'll pass especially if it's a God that require activities like worship and prayer.
Honesty I'd much rather be out in the garden or walk the dog.
But hey, each to their own hobbies I say.
Peace Love Empathy.
Makes perfect sense! Thanks.
I know this will make you mad Matt, but you're wrong about your application of the null hypothesis. It more broadly is the thing you disbelieve and want to disprove so you can believe the alternate thing you think is true. So the null hypothesis is supposed to put the burden of proof on the person who believes something. For instance, the null hypothesis is that the person is innocent until proven guilty. I am the prosecutor who must provide enough evidence so that I have a reason to accept the alternative, that the person is guilty.
You have been backwards all along.
The way it should work is someone should come to you with a God belief. You then assume, for the sake of argument, that they are telling the truth (they are the null hypothesis) and then if you can provide enough evidence to refute their claim, you can continue to believe there is no God (to continue to believe the alternative, to continue to disbelieve the null hypothesis).
The proof you must provide is something like making them contradict themselves (or at least statistically most likely contradict themselves) to the point of making their assertion about their God to be most likely invalid, so that you can statistically assert with confidence that their God does not exist. You must find their belief guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You cannot be passive. You must disprove their null hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt, not vice versa.
If they will not participate in the process, you have no need to engage them further. (That's where it's different than the courtroom analogy, because if their claim cannot be tested, it can be ignored. So they have to participate, not remain silent.)
Matt, you are almost universally wrong about how statistics works, and this one you've been wrong about for decades.
I suggest you take this exact thing I am saying here to real PhD statisticians (which I am), and confirm that I am right, and that you've been wrong about who has the burden of proof all along.
The reason it is this way is that the statistical burden always lies with the person who believes something. You assert you have found no credible evidence for belief in a supernatural God. You must disprove someone else's claim of a supernatural God to statistically continue disbelieving the null hypothesis.
Think of it this way. If the null hypothesis is that brushing teeth does not reduce the number of cavities, you must set up experiments that prove a correlation between the two to disprove what you disbelieve. You cannot be passive and reverse this to say the null hypothesis is that brushing teeth lessens cavities and force others to disprove your claim (even if you are right). You are assuming guilt unless they prove innocence.
You're wrong here. Theism isn't a claim and doesn't incur a burden of proof