**Re: Conceptual Question: Experiment where you analyze different skew between conditio**
Not sayin' they aren't *related*, but the substantive hypothesis is hardly ever the same as the *null* hypothesis. Usually the substantive hypothesis people want to test - the bit predicted by their theory or whatever - is that some relationship exists in some particular direction. Then they try to reject the null in favour of this substantive hypothesis. (Which, by the by, usually isn't quite the same as the alternate hypothesis either).

well... this is not necessarily true. there are examples (like covariance modelling/SEM) where your substantive hypothesis of interest

*is*
the null hypothesis (i.e. does my model reproduce the data within sampling variability?). in linear mixed models you can also try and look for a null hypothesis to help you choose a parsimonious model.

i'm not sure if my position places me on the 'purist' side of things, but I believe that your substantive hypothesis either needs to be phrased in statistical terms to be tested OR some other hypothesis that can be phrased in statistical terms needs to be posited such that it's rejection (or failure to reject) logically implies that there is evidence in favour of your theory.

let's be honest... if you can't somehow tie hypothesis testing to your research question, then why are you doing it in the first place?

Now if us psychology types actually had theories that made statements precise enough to formulate as point null hypotheses, and then we tried to falsify them, our field would be in a lot better shape, but we don't and can't....

I think we can. we're just lazy and able to get away with it. I think if psychologists got sued for millions of dollars like pharmaceutical companies do when their new drugs come out you'd see the appropriateness of research design taking a much more prominent role in the field. but as things stand now, what's the worst thing that can happen to you? that your manuscript gets rejected?.... which, i mean, it is painful... but it doesn't hurt as much as if the editors rejected your manuscript AND charge you a bill of wasting their time.

perhaps this is a new way in which Psychology could improve itself: if you did things right, you get published. if you did them wrong, you have to pay out of your own pocket.