Statistical vs Research

Research and statistical hypothesis are both required for any scientific investigation, yet most individuals frequently conflate the two because they view them as being interchangeable. A statement that is informed and tentatively intended to account for certain facts is referred to be a research hypothesis (Bunge, 2012). It is referred to as a testable and verifiable explanation that is put out to explain some discernible pattern or trend, according to Kline (2012). A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, refers to a claim about the existence of a pattern or trend in a particular set of data. In research and the waiting period for proof following study, there are two sorts of statistical hypotheses. To differentiate between them, statistical tests are utilized. One show the anticipated data when the research hypothesis is true and is referred to as a null hypothesis. The other option is applicable when the research hypothesis is false and is called the alternative hypothesis (Kline, 2012). The two statistical statements are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. In a statistical test, the tenability of the null hypothesis is investigated.

A research hypothesis, therefore, is a result of inductive reasoning where scientists develop a theory after some observations have been made from different types of research. To make it testable and falsifiable, the scientist must hence use a large number of deductive methods that are acceptable and can be followed stepwise (Bunge, 2012). On the other hand, a statistical hypothesis is not testable by any means in the scientific methodology. This type may result from unverifiable observation, literature review or intuition. Consequently, often statistical hypothesis leads to the formation of the research hypothesis. This transformation, therefore, requires that scientist research whether the proposition is true or false. If anything, the statistical hypothesis is used as the predictions for the outcome of a study.

Statistical Hypothesis

These are random thoughts from an individual that are not verifiable through by any scientific means.

Null Hypothesis: The safety of AirCare accredited aviation operators is equal to non-accredited ones when measured by the number of accidents encountered.

Alternative Hypothesis: The safety of Air care accredited aviation operators is not equal to non-accredited ones when measured by the number of accidents encountered.

Research Hypothesis

This comes after research was conducted through a scientific methodology where data was collected analyzed and conclusions made.

Aviation safety ensures that the lives of people traveling by air and those not traveling and ensures that they continue their business (Rodrigues & Cusick, 2012.

P-value, also known as the probability value is the chance that a given statistic model to occur when the null hypothesis is correct. The p-value is used in testing the statistical significance of in a hypothesis test. It is used to determine the importance of a study and whether or not it will be published (Kline, 2012). In short, the p-value indicates how well the data collected to support the null hypothesis. It tests if the observed data patterns are due to chance or are true (Sham & Purcell, 2014). A high p-value indicates that the null hypothesis is true while a low one indicates that it is possibly untrue. A low p value shows that there is enough evidence that one can reject the null hypothesis for the whole population (Kline, 2012). Unlike people mistake, the p value does not mean support for the alternative hypothesis nor is it the possibility of making a mistake.

References

Bunge, M. (2012). Scientific research II: The search for truth. Springer Science & Business Media.

Kline, R. (2012). Beyond significance testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rodrigues, C. C., & Cusick, S. K. (2012). Commercial aviation safety. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.

Sham, P. C., & Purcell, S. M. (2014). Statistical power and significance testing in large-scale genetic studies. Nature reviews. Genetics, 15(5), 335.