Something that perplexes me is mindless passivity from people whose professions should be anything but mindless. I came to expect this response whenever I (repeatedly) raised the issue of significance testing (NHST) with friends who have established careers in research.
Common reactions involve:
They are jumping through hoops, postponing this “annoyance” for a hypothetical tomorrow. Good for their careers? Possibly. For Science? I'm not so sure.
Perhaps a friend tells you: “Listen, again: there's something you're doing that might be untrue and harmful. Look into it. You're a scientist. I'm ok if you disagree and feel skeptical and argue back and whatnot. But please engage your brain.”
If this happens to you, please engage your brain.
At least part of this is due to genuine confusion. This site tries to be direct and clear to dispel confusion with a minimal amount of reading. There's enough here to dive deeper if you so desire. But even a quick read should be enough to get the message that something is wrong and that the consequences are
I hope you put the time to understand it better.
And I know: there are deeper problems with scientific research. I'm not scapegoating significance testing (or its chum the p‑value) for all the sorrows of science. But I'm not intent on absolving them either.
I write here under the name Hence Fort — a protagonist in a statistical fable. You should read it, because it has chocolate and cows, which are things you love (unlike chowder and chow chows, which you don't).
Fables usually teach us moral lessons, and that fable is not different.
I wish you all the best.
I can be reached at contact at pv . mm . st