Frequentist stats just aren't that useful for experimental results because they don't tell folks what they need to know. Even ignoring that, researchers underst

Frequentist stats just aren't that useful for experimental results because they don't tell folks what they need to know. Even ignoring that, researchers understanding of even basic concepts like P-values is so bad that one might as well throw out everything, baby and all. In one survey [0], 94% of Spanish academic psychologists believed in some form of the inverse probability fallacy. A similar survey in Italy showed similar results. Anecdotally, I can definitely say that the vast majority of American physical scientists I've talked to about this also fell prey to this. With the inverse probability fallacy, one attaches a Bayesian interpretation to P-values, so I don't think training scientists in Bayesian stats would be harder than getting them to use frequentist stats correctly (which is a minefield in comparison). [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280580018_Interpretation_of_the_p_value_A_national_survey_study_in_academic_psychologists_from_Spain https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280580018_Interpret...