Question

You can reject a null hypothesis, but why can we never accept or prove it?

Answer 1

Answer:-

• An null hypothesis is never acknowledged or demonstrated in light of the fact that it isn't rejected.
• Information not adequate to demonstrate convincingly that a distinction between methods isn't zero don't demonstrate that the thing that matters is zero.
• Such information may even propose that the invalid speculation is false however not be sufficiently able to put forth a persuading defense that the invalid theory is false.

For instance:-

• In the event that the likelihood esteem were 0.15, at that point one would not be prepared to show one's case that the invalid speculation is false to the (legitimately) wary academic network.
• Additional persuading information would be expected. Be that as it may, there would be no premise to reason that the invalid theory is valid.
• It might possibly be valid, there simply isn't sufficient proof to dismiss it.
• Not even in situations where there is no proof that the invalid speculation is false is it substantial to close the invalid theory is valid.
• On the off chance that the invalid theory is that µ1 - µ2 is zero, at that point the speculation is that the thing that matters is actually zero.
• No trial can recognize the instance of no contrast among methods and a very little distinction between methods.
• On the off chance that information are steady with the invalid speculation, they are likewise reliable with other comparative theories.
• Along these lines, if the information don't give a premise to dismissing the invalid theory that µ1-µ2 = 0 then they very likely won't give a premise to dismissing the speculation that µ1-µ2 = 0.001.
• The information are reliable with the two theories.
• At the point when the invalid theory isn't dismissed then it is authentic to presume that the information are predictable with the invalid speculation.
• It isn't authentic to reason that the information bolster the acknowledgment of the invalid theory since the information are steady with different theories also.
• In certain regards, dismissing the invalid speculation is practically identical to a jury finding a litigant blameworthy. In the two cases, the proof is persuading past a sensible uncertainty.
• Neglecting to dismiss the invalid theory is tantamount to a finding of not liable. The respondent isn't proclaimed blameless.
• There is sufficiently not proof to persuade past a sensible uncertainty.
• In the legal framework, a choice must be made and the respondent is without set.
• In science, no choice must be made right away. More investigations are led.