"Accept" or "Fail to reject" the Null hypothesis

[Harry_the_cat]

More and more I am noticing students and textbooks using the phrase "accept the null hypothesis" in statistical analysis.

I have always insisted that students use the term "fail to reject H₀" rather than "accept H₀". The difference appears subtle and seems to be ignored by many textbook writers (and subsequently teachers and then students) these days. To me, this is analogous to the terms used in a court of law ie "guilty" or "not guilty" - we don't say "guilty" or "innocent".

We aren't "accepting" the null hypothesis, we are only saying that the data doesn't give us enough evidence to "reject" it. That's a very different thing.

I'd like to know others thoughts on this, particularly if you have a background in statistical analysis. It has bothered me for a while.

 

[tkhunny]

I think it's simply wrong. The Null hypothesis is that thing that is assumed to be the status quo. We will go with it unless we are forced to reject it. Does this mean acceptance? Absolutely not. If there is more evidence tomorrow, we'll be happy to reject.