That's all stem cells.

So what scientists do is they have a hypothesis that they think might be likely to start with.

And so, at that time,

The first step is customer discovery.

It was hot. It wasn't hot enough.

We checked with the experiments, validated the prediction.

At this point, we have systematically fixed the first bug using the scientific method to systematically come up with a hypothesis and refine it, refine it again, possibly come up with alternatives until we end up with a diagnosis.

the mosquito man. But he ran an experiment in people, right?

We, will assume there's no correlation between x and y.

like playground supervisors.

If the observation, however, is not in line with your prediction, then the hypothesis is rejected, and if the hypothesis is rejected, you need to come up with a new hypothesis, and this cycle going along from hypothesis through prediction through experiment through observation and gradually refining the hypothesis or coming up with alternatives.

You're job is to get out of the building and talk to the payers.

So the physics is that you cannot prove a hypothesis, but it's easy to disprove it any hypothesis is shaky.

So the null hypothesis is that the slope relating X to Y is zero.

Conversely, if the null hypothesis falls outside, you don't believe null hypothesis and you accept the alternate hypothesis.

For bugs, we do not.

And as long as we've looked for explanations, we've wound up with something that gets closer and closer to science, which is hypotheses as to why we get sick, and as long as we've had hypotheses about why we get sick, we've tried to treat it as well.

What is it we have seen? We have started with an initial hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is the basic hypothesis that something is correct and unless proven wrong, we always believe null hypothesis is actually correct, we trust the manufacturer or do we have sufficient evidence to be very high likelihood the null hypothesis is wrong, the alternate hypothesis is correct then, we reject the null hypothesis and we tell the manufacturer, please print the label on the box because the number there isn't quite correct.

Is it because it's more fun?

And our null hypothesis is equals p 0.9 and our alternate hypothesis, if it doesn't work, as well as the null hypothesis, so p is smaller than 0.9.

That is, the diagnosis was valid from the beginning on, and therefore, was a correct explanation of how the failure came to be.

Of course if you retain and the null is in fact true, then great you made the correct decision.

They thought that their customer segments was going to be professional sports game attendees.

Maybe we are in tag mode, maybe the variable tag is set.

See if you can come up with a pattern for what it is that it's doing, and then convince yourself why.

Now, for the answers. A theory is the outcome of the scientific method.

And Feynman also understood this.

Note that there are many ways to come up with an initial hypothesis.

What are the benefits the customer expects, desires or surprise about.

Note that there may be multiple hypotheses to start with, and also of course during the scientific method, you may come up with different hypotheses.

So now, we have two hypotheses and we'd like to test them.

This is a guy named Carlos Finlay.

Mastermind is a prime example of applying the scientific method coming up with 1 experiment after the other to validate or reject a hypothesis on what's behind these bars, and then based on your observations, you come up with a new hypothesis and a new hypothesis.

Here's our optional unit. It involves programming and what I want is really simple.

My bold speculation is that I will be absolutely vindicated by history.

A possible explanation for what you just observed.

The result confirmed my hypothesis.

The evidence makes them change that hypothesis.

That is at the vertical access value 0.5.

Networks, which turns out to be a much better way to

Our case line says, we can generalized it towards other objects and to come up with a more general hypothesis.

The facts bear out this hypothesis.

So, our hypothesis would be grounded on the initial observation of the failure and possible also all the knowledge we do have about our program.

We'll talk about this canvas in some excruciating detail in the following lectures but you should know we used to canvas for two things.