As I understand it, correlation is not sufficient to prove causation. "Null hypothesis" is one statistical tool, an abstraction over our understanding of the real world.
Consider the case where all of those infected with disease D die, while 99% of those infected with D and treated with T survive. Further consider that T is widely administered. Clearly, the correlation between being infected and dying is very low although with a deeper understanding we know that D in fact causes death.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you can state the null hypothesis arbitrarily: "Breathing does nothing" / "Not breathing does nothing." "Aerobic exercise does not increase the probability of developing metastatic cancer" / "A sedentary lifestyle does not increase the probability of developing metastatic cancer." So, in fact your null hypothesis already has a bias of what you consider the baseline, i.e. yes-cancer or no-cancer. So in essence, you are trying to scientize for the sake of argumentation.
Water Resistant 3 atm or 30 m: Suitable for everyday use. Splash/rain resistant. Not suitable for showering, bathing, swimming, snorkeling, water related work, fishing, and diving.
As I understand it, correlation is not sufficient to prove causation. "Null hypothesis" is one statistical tool, an abstraction over our understanding of the real world.
Consider the case where all of those infected with disease D die, while 99% of those infected with D and treated with T survive. Further consider that T is widely administered. Clearly, the correlation between being infected and dying is very low although with a deeper understanding we know that D in fact causes death.