> Yet another datapoint to suggest the gp post that academia strongly correlates with dishonesty. There's no dishonesty here! They are reporting data to the s

> Yet another datapoint to suggest the gp post that academia strongly correlates with dishonesty. There's no dishonesty here! They are reporting data to the standard of their community. We need to raise the level of rigor and convince people to drop the entire concept of statistically significant as meaning anything at all. This all taking far too long unfortunately. Statisticians made a terrible terrible mistake that doomed science to this bullshit for nearly a century now. People like Pearson and Fisher had good intentions, but the language they used for their methods makes them sound too attractive. So people interpret their methods to be something they are not. We need an overhaul of teaching throughout statistics to excise this cancer now, and that's going to just be very slow. So no. Authors are doing what they were taught, what is likely best practices in their textbook. It's just that the textbook has been wrong for far too long.