> Worse, NHST is often taken to mean that any data can be used to decide between two inverse claims: either ‘an effect’ that posits a relationship between, say,

> Worse, NHST is often taken to mean that any data can be used to decide between two inverse claims: either ‘an effect’ that posits a relationship between, say, a treatment and an outcome (typically the favoured hypothesis) or ‘no effect’ (defined as the null hypothesis). This is the whole problem, the rejection of the null hypothesis is not just a ritual to follow before you then accept the alternate. Fisher's core idea is that it only takes one piece of evidence to reject something, while it should take many to confirm something. So the only conclusion you should draw is about what you've rejected. You can't then take that and infer the acceptance of something else. It's a subtle but important distinction that is the whole reason for this process.