不好意思自问自答 我後来看了很多文章 觉得这篇讲得不错 https://reurl.cc/jlNDKm 结论大概是 Null Hypothesis (H0): This statement is the default setting. We assume it is true before implementing any tests. In short, this statement has been protected. Alternative Hypothesis (H1): This statement is the research claim, which we want to prove. The hypothesis test set up in this way is because we want to be more strict to “what we want to prove” (alternative hypothesis H1). That is, we can not prove our research claim (H1) unless we have enough evidence. // 总结一下 需要严格的证据支持才能支持的论点放在 Ha To sum up, we tend to protect the null hypothesis (H0) and be more strict to the alternative hypothesis (H1). 文章最後也有提到推文中所讨论的 有罪无罪问题 如当初质疑的 这部分确实是客观的 在不同的法律体系，有不同的假设 What’s more serious? We need to be careful about our bias while setting the null hypothesis and significant level — these are subjective work. How do we set up our default belief (or action)? (Or, even not aware of our default setting) How many risks are we able to accept for type I error? — these all include bias. 在预设无罪，而被判有罪较严重的法律系统下 H0 无罪 Ha 有罪 代表你要定他人罪行，一定要有足够的证据才能 相对之下，另一套法律系统，预设有罪而被判无罪比较严重 宁愿误判有罪，也补放过犯罪的体制下 H0 有罪 Ha 无罪 要有足够的证据才能说明你无罪 这之间的选择，确实牵涉客观看法 文章中也有举日本的体制说明 分享给大家 感谢大家的讨论与分享 ※ 引述《scitamehtam (scitamehtam)》之铭言： : 每次遇到这种问题 : 其实最搞不通的是，到底要设成H0还是H1 : 请问这类问题有何原则吗？ : 尤其左右尾检定 : 例如： : 1. : 宣称某产品产能至少是X : H0: u <= X : 2. : 若营业额大於X则调涨房租 : H0: u>= X : 为何不能反过来呢？ : 看到例题都没有明确解释设定逻辑 : 重心反而都在後续的统计量计算 : ---- : Sent from BePTT on my iPhone 12 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 101.12.16.111 (台湾) ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Statistics/M.1683714819.A.5D8.html