From 02976526c169f62f7a300b042dd4905890e7e5b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Runxi Yu Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:21:51 +0100 Subject: null hypothesis --- microblog/index.html | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/microblog/index.html b/microblog/index.html index 76e4aea..590d256 100644 --- a/microblog/index.html +++ b/microblog/index.html @@ -13,6 +13,13 @@ This is my microblog, a place for me to jot down random thoughts that I want to keep, but are too small enough to constitute a real article/post. Reverse chronological order.

+

+ The null hypothesis is haunted. It appears in almost any reasoning/proof/etc. + Typically, when discussing a policy, the null hypothesis is the status quo; when evaluating a statement, the null hypothesis is the current best understanding (which is often unclear), or is simply a negation of the statement. + Where does the burden of proof fall? + & +

+

I used to not really understand utilitarianism, the lack of a universal standard bugged me. But that was Bentham. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism seems to be more acceptable to me, it seemed to look into the future and cover how individual cases affect a decision entity, be it personal or systematic, in the long term. Generally when applying Millian utilitarianism, I obtain similar results to when I using existing principles. This somewhat reaffirms my hypothesis that these moral principles still arise from a utilitarian analysis of cost and benefit in the long term.
-- cgit 1.4.1-2-gfad0