Editing Null hypothesis (section)

====Discussion====
Fisher said, "the null hypothesis must be exact, that is free of vagueness and ambiguity, because it must supply the basis of the 'problem of distribution,' of which the test of significance is the solution", implying a more restrictive domain for ''H''<sub>0</sub>.<ref>{{cite book |last=Fisher |first=R. A. |year=1966 |title=The Design of Experiments |edition=8th |publisher=Hafner |location=Edinburgh |title-link=The Design of Experiments }}</ref> According to this view, the null hypothesis must be numerically exact—it must state that a particular quantity or difference is equal to a particular number. In classical science, it is most typically the statement that there is ''no effect'' of a particular treatment; in observations, it is typically that there is ''no difference'' between the value of a particular measured variable and that of a prediction.

Most statisticians believe that it is valid to state direction as a part of null hypothesis, or as part of a null hypothesis/alternative hypothesis pair.<ref>For example see [http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A73079.html Null hypothesis]</ref> However, the results are not a full description of all the results of an experiment, merely a single result tailored to one particular purpose. For example, consider an ''H''<sub>0</sub> that claims the population mean for a new treatment is an improvement on a well-established treatment with population {{nowrap|mean {{=}} 10}} (known from long experience), with the one-tailed alternative being that the new treatment's {{nowrap|mean > 10}}. If the sample evidence obtained through ''x''-bar equals −200 and the corresponding t-test statistic equals −50, the conclusion from the test would be that there is no evidence that the new treatment is better than the existing one: it would not report that it is markedly worse, but that is not what this particular test is looking for. To overcome any possible ambiguity in reporting the result of the test of a null hypothesis, it is best to indicate whether the test was two-sided and, if one-sided, to include the direction of the effect being tested.

The statistical theory required to deal with the simple cases of directionality dealt with here, and more complicated ones, makes use of the concept of an [[unbiased test]].

The directionality of hypotheses is not always obvious. The explicit null hypothesis of Fisher's [[Lady tasting tea]] example was that the Lady had no such ability, which led to a symmetric probability distribution. The one-tailed nature of the test resulted from the one-tailed alternate hypothesis (a term not used by Fisher). The null hypothesis became implicitly one-tailed. The logical negation of the Lady's one-tailed claim was also one-tailed. (Claim: Ability > 0; Stated null: Ability = 0; Implicit null: Ability ≤ 0).

Pure arguments over the use of one-tailed tests are complicated by the variety of tests. Some tests (for instance the χ<sup>2</sup> goodness of fit test) are inherently one-tailed. Some probability distributions are asymmetric. The traditional tests of 3 or more groups are two-tailed.

Advice concerning the use of one-tailed hypotheses has been inconsistent and accepted practice varies among fields.<ref>{{cite journal
 | last1 = Lombardi | first1 = Celia M. | last2 = Hurlbert| first2 = Stuart H.
 | title = Misprescription and misuse of one-tailed tests
 | journal = Austral Ecology
 | volume = 34 | pages = 447–468 | year = 2009 | issue = 4 | doi = 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.01946.x| doi-access = free | bibcode = 2009AusEc..34..447L }}  Discusses the merits and historical usage of one-tailed tests in biology at length.</ref> The greatest objection to one-tailed hypotheses is their potential subjectivity. A non-significant result can sometimes be converted to a significant result by the use of a one-tailed hypothesis (as the fair coin test, at the whim of the analyst). The flip side of the argument: One-sided tests are less likely to ignore a real effect. One-tailed tests can suppress the publication of data that differs in sign from predictions. Objectivity was a goal of the developers of statistical tests.

It is a common practice to use a one-tailed hypothesis by default. However, "If you do not have a specific direction firmly in mind in advance, use a two-sided alternative. Moreover, some users of statistics argue that we should ''always'' work with the two-sided alternative."<ref name=moore/><ref>{{cite journal
 | last1 = Bland | first1 = J Martin | last2 = Altman | first2 = Douglas G
 | title = One and two sided tests of significance
 | journal = BMJ | volume = 309 | issue = 6949 | page = 248 | date = 23 July 1994 | doi=10.1136/bmj.309.6949.248| pmid = 8069143 | pmc = 2540725 }}  With respect to medical statistics: "In general a one sided test is appropriate when a large difference in one direction would lead to the same action as no difference at all. Expectation of a difference in a particular direction is not adequate justification."  "Two sided tests should be used unless there is a very good reason for doing otherwise. If one sided tests are to be used the direction of the test must be specified in advance. One sided tests should never be used simply as a device to make a conventionally non-significant difference significant."</ref>

One alternative to this advice is to use three-outcome tests. It eliminates the issues surrounding directionality of hypotheses by testing twice, once in each direction and combining the results to produce three possible outcomes.<ref>{{cite journal
 | last1 = Jones | first1 = Lyle V. | last2 = Tukey | first2 = John W.
 | s2cid = 14553341 | title = A Sensible Formulation of the Significance Test
 | journal = Psychological Methods
 | volume = 5 | number = 4 | pages = 411–414 | year = 2000 | doi = 10.1037/1082-989X.5.4.411 | pmid = 11194204 }}  Test results  are signed: significant positive effect, significant negative effect or insignificant effect of unknown sign.  This is a more nuanced conclusion than that of the two-tailed test.  It has the advantages of one-tailed tests without the disadvantages.</ref> Variations on this approach have a history, being suggested perhaps 10 times since 1950.<ref>{{cite journal
 | last1 = Hurlbert | first1 = S. H. | last2 = Lombardi | first2 = C. M.
 | title = Final collapse of the Neyman-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian
 | journal = Ann. Zool. Fennici
 | volume = 46 | issue = 5 | pages = 311–349 | year = 2009 | issn = 1797-2450 | doi=10.5735/086.046.0501| s2cid = 9688067 }}</ref>

Disagreements over one-tailed tests flow from the philosophy of science. While Fisher was willing to ignore the unlikely case of the Lady guessing all cups of tea incorrectly (which may have been appropriate for the circumstances), medicine believes that a proposed treatment that kills patients is significant in every sense and should be reported and perhaps explained. Poor statistical reporting practices have contributed to disagreements over one-tailed tests. Statistical significance resulting from two-tailed tests is insensitive to the sign of the relationship; Reporting significance alone is inadequate. "The treatment has an effect" is the uninformative result of a two-tailed test. "The treatment has a beneficial effect" is the more informative result of a one-tailed test. "The treatment has an effect, reducing the average length of hospitalization by 1.5 days" is the most informative report, combining a two-tailed significance test result with a numeric estimate of the relationship between treatment and effect. Explicitly reporting a numeric result eliminates a philosophical advantage of a one-tailed test. An underlying issue is the appropriate form of an experimental science without numeric predictive theories: A model of numeric results is more informative than a model of effect signs (positive, negative or unknown) which is more informative than a model of simple significance (non-zero or unknown); in the absence of numeric theory signs may suffice.