>>11278321>"Bias towards what?" which I made clear in that post. Perhaps some form of mental deficiency prevents me seeing what this actually means.If we assume that a scientist has some kind of malicious bias, then whether they rejected the null hypothesis or not doesn't tell you anything. In a drug trial, a biased scientist would want their drug to be shown effective - so they'd hope that the null hypothesis gets rejected. However, in a toxicology trial, a biased scientist would want their compound to be shown safe - so they'd hope that the null hypothesis gets accepted.
That's why I don't think looking at the percent of experiments that reject/accept a hypothesis really tells you anything about whether the person is doing their job properly.
>Yes, and it follows from this and the apparent fact that 80-90% of the time, they don't nullify their original hypothesisAre you basing this '80-90%' figure off of publications? Because it's a known issue that only successful hypotheses end up getting published. You don't see all the work we do that goes straight into the garbage because it's meaningless. Scientists are almost never right on their first guess.
