I understand what you’re saying, but I have to highlight a mistake. In science, what you’re talking about is not a “probability of being right”, but a probabil

I understand what you’re saying, but I have to highlight a mistake. In science, what you’re talking about is not a “probability of being right”, but a probability of not getting the same experimental results completely randomly, without any underlying cause. You still might have 0% probability of being right. With “95% confidence” there still could be no measured effect whatsoever, you just made the same experiment multiple times and randomly finally got big enough random numbers to get you 95% confidence. It’s not a nitpick, it is a serious mistake that 95% social scientists make.