Well, sort-of. Its not just about p-values or the likelyhood of making a particular type of error by agreeing with a thesis. There is a fundamental misunderst

Well, sort-of. Its not just about p-values or the likelyhood of making a particular type of error by agreeing with a thesis. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that most people, and even many scientists make with regards to the philosophical interpretation of 'truth' using the scientific method. By definition, scientific 'truth' is always fallible, and the vast majority of people have a very hard time dealing with this concept. A better explanation or additional data, or better data is always possible and needs to be possible for science to not be dogma. This is fundamentally different than how people interpret truth and understand what the word means. All scientific truths are replaceable.