Biology and Philosophy 35 (2):1-22 (2020)

Authors
Mingjun Zhang
University of Pennsylvania
Abstract
In this article I give a critical evaluation of the use and limitations of null-model-based hypothesis testing as a research strategy in the biological sciences. According to this strategy, the null model based on a randomization procedure provides an appropriate null hypothesis stating that the existence of a pattern is the result of random processes or can be expected by chance alone, and proponents of other hypotheses should first try to reject this null hypothesis in order to demonstrate their own hypotheses. Using as an example the controversy over the use of null hypotheses and null models in species co-occurrence studies, I argue that null-model-based hypothesis testing fails to work as a proper analog to traditional statistical null-hypothesis testing as used in well-controlled experimental research, and that the random process hypothesis should not be privileged as a null hypothesis. Instead, the possible use of the null model resides in its role of providing a way to challenge scientists’ commonsense judgments about how a seemingly unusual pattern could have come to be. Despite this possible use, null-model-based hypothesis testing still carries certain limitations, and it should not be regarded as an obligation for biologists who are interested in explaining patterns in nature to first conduct such a test before pursuing their own hypotheses.
Keywords Null model  Null hypothesis  Checkerboard distribution  Interspecific competition  Random colonization  Control of variables
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10539-020-09748-0
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Modeling: Neutral, Null, and Baseline.William C. Bausman - 2018 - Philosophy of Science 85 (4):594-616.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Chow's Defense of Null-Hypothesis Testing: Too Traditional?Robert W. Frick - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):199-199.
The Logic of Null Hypothesis Testing.Edward Erwin - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):197-198.
A Viable Alternative to Null-Hypothesis Testing.Bruno D. Zumbo - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):227-228.
Modeling: Neutral, Null, and Baseline.William C. Bausman - 2018 - Philosophy of Science 85 (4):594-616.
Précis of Statistical Significance: Rationale, Validity, and Utility.Siu L. Chow - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):169-194.
Philosophy of the Environmental Sciences.Jay Odenbaugh - 2010 - In P. D. Magnus & Jacob Busch (eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Science. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 155--171.
On Possible Restrictions of the Null Ideal.Ashutosh Kumar & Saharon Shelah - 2019 - Journal of Mathematical Logic 19 (2):1950008.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-04-23

Total views
56 ( #168,701 of 2,343,995 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
56 ( #10,764 of 2,343,995 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes