Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Authentication of validity test

  1. #1 Authentication of validity test 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Instead of just using the standard null/alternative hypothesis to test the existence of a substance that isn't shown to exist as the null hypothesis(Yes, I know it is never meant to be proven or accepted, but rather to be asserted as a default position) approach seems to be too assumptive (One need to test the validity of the null conclusion before authenticating it). I have proposed an additional approach which is called the authentication of validity test as a result of my questioning to the assumption that lack of evidence is evidence of absence.

    In order for the investigation to validated
    -The conclusion can be backed up by empirical data of some sort
    -The hypothesis is investigatable and clear enough
    -The defining point of the investigation and shows every detailed source.
    -Analysis procedure must be clear enough to be understandable to the point where detailed analysis is shown
    -Detailed analysis must show datas showing evidence to support the sources and analysis procedures
    -The hypothesis must have a clear definition of what topic is being referred to and how is the subject is to be perceived as to the subject.
    -The investigation must have shown a procedure which fullfills as much details as possible when investigating a hypothesis.
    -Whether claim is investigatable.
    -If the hypothesis shows a negative which itself cannot be investigatible, then the authentication of validity test says that only supportable conclusion can only yield to no conclusion derivable.
    -The conclusion takes in consideration of the authenticity of the claim by considering all of the possible sources. It is not valid if it does not consider all of the possible investigatable sources in which conclusion is made from.

    Although the yielding to no conclusion creates the problem of the stalemate and eliminates the need of burden of proof, it can only be used to represent the circumstance of the hypothesis and to at least allow for others to be more objective in the sense that they are avoiding assumptions. Furthermore, the purpose is to consider whether a conclusion can actually be derived from a data. You can show that the blue dog don't even exist in X area by analyzing the records of dog's DNA after the verification of X area being cleared, so the negative conclusion is actually supported from the derivation of results gathered .

    If one is to test the hypothetical being X which is too ill-defined and nebulous like the word god (There's natural pantheistic viewpoint, there's the viewpoint of quantum energy, there's the viewpoint of anthropomorphic side...). It would not pass on authenticity of validity test because it isn't clear by itself. One can prove a negative when the circumstances allows for the negative to be shown as true for example, to see whether a person is in a closet.

    What is your thoughts?

    Reply With Quote  


Similar Threads

  1. IQ Test?
    By Patrick_94 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2012, 10:44 PM
  2. Researching Password Authentication for My Masters
    By Crocodile3 in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 12th, 2010, 04:01 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: June 12th, 2010, 02:34 PM
  4. Why is the Turing Test considered a good test of AI?
    By angrysoba in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 17th, 2006, 11:38 AM
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts