Is hypothesis testing logically fallacious?

The Oblivious Physicist

In a paper just published in Philosophies Dr Matthew Booth and myself discuss in what sense traditional (i.e. frequentist) hypothesis testing leads to fallacious conclusions.

By identifying the logical skeleton of the argument as an instance of Modus Tollens (e.g. “If it is raining, John takes his umbrella. John is outside without his umbrella. Therefore it is not raining.”), we show that the conclusions drawn from hypothesis testing as used in the most represented schools of thought (such as Fisher’s, Neymann and Pearson’s or Null Hypothesis Significance Testing’s) are unsound within classical True/False logic. As a result, we echo previous claims that traditional hypothesis testing is a fallacious argument of classical logic.

We explore then the possibility of making frequentist hypothesis testing both valid and sound within various classes of fuzzy logics and show that some fuzzy logics are appropriate for hypothesis testing to be framed within.

The suggested takeaway…

View original post 69 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, United Kingdom
%d bloggers like this: