I've seen this attitude before. The idea goes something like: "If the effect you are seeing is so subtle that you have to resort to statistical tests, it probab

I've seen this attitude before. The idea goes something like: "If the effect you are seeing is so subtle that you have to resort to statistical tests, it probably isn't a phenotype you should be studying". In my experience, this usually comes from PIs that worked back in the days of "move bar of light across visual field, see neurons fire". Their experiments were ground breaking and had drastic phenotypes. On the flipside, I've seen experiments where they are showing that one population of neurons is 2% more dynamic than another population, and sometimes you just wonder if that really matters at all (or if you are really sampling the population well enough)