Pretty good take on this for a general-purpose audience. I was ready to complain about this line for implying P(H|D) (rather than P(D|H_0), as actually occurs):

Pretty good take on this for a general-purpose audience. I was ready to complain about this line for implying P(H|D) (rather than P(D|H_0), as actually occurs): > The researcher basically asks: How ridiculous would it be to believe the null hypothesis is the true answer, given the results we’re seeing? but I think they (indirectly) correct it pretty well in the next section. It isn't published yet, but Gelman and co's recent piece on this seems like an important contribution to the debate [1]. Short version: take the p-value down from it's pedestal, abandon the dichotomous view of is/isn't significant, and consider it with all the other evidence and data. [1]: http://andrewgelman.com/2017/09/26/abandon-statistical-significance/ http://andrewgelman.com/2017/09/26/abandon-statistical-signi...