The standard ritual for measuring significance in research seems to me to be some strange marriage of the ideas of Fisher, Neyman, and Pearson that I'm not sure

The standard ritual for measuring significance in research seems to me to be some strange marriage of the ideas of Fisher, Neyman, and Pearson that I'm not sure any of them would have actually agreed with. I'd be interested to hear any historians of statistics or scientific methodology comment more on that angle or correct my misinterpretation if thats what it is.