I was suggesting that there might be ways of assigning the label of “null hypothesis”.
X is good, more X is good. (intuition favors “more chemo should kill more cancer cells”)
X has a cost, we go as far as the standards say, and stop there. (Chemo kills cells. This works on your cells, and cancer cells. Maybe chemo isn’t like shooting someone—they aren’t that likely to die as a result—but just as you wouldn’t shoot someone to improve their health unless it was absolutely necessary, and no more, chemo should be treated the same way.) “Do no harm.” (This may implicitly distinguish between action and inaction.)
I was suggesting that there might be ways of assigning the label of “null hypothesis”.
X is good, more X is good. (intuition favors “more chemo should kill more cancer cells”)
X has a cost, we go as far as the standards say, and stop there. (Chemo kills cells. This works on your cells, and cancer cells. Maybe chemo isn’t like shooting someone—they aren’t that likely to die as a result—but just as you wouldn’t shoot someone to improve their health unless it was absolutely necessary, and no more, chemo should be treated the same way.) “Do no harm.” (This may implicitly distinguish between action and inaction.)