Skip to main content
Cross Validated

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ It depends on what you mean by "prove." As stated, this is a philosophical question, not a statistical one, and has no definitive answer (although, at least since David Hume's time, most people would answer "no"). $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 13, 2011 at 16:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is somewhat of an ill-posed question. We need to know the conditions under which this "proof" is to occur. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 16, 2011 at 15:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps a better posed question is "Under what conditions/assumptions is it possible to prove the null hypothesis?" $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 16, 2011 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ Related: Why do statisticians say a non-significant result means “you can't reject the null” as opposed to accepting the null hypothesis? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 14, 2016 at 22:40