>Statistical significance is relevant when you're trying to find correlations, not when you're trying to figure out whether it's worth removing a few grains to

>Statistical significance is relevant when you're trying to find correlations, not when you're trying to figure out whether it's worth removing a few grains to make a cup of sand lighter. You got it backwards. It's relevant when you're trying to find correlations, precisely because it helps measure the impact of a change. This is true whether the change is some variable change in research space searching for correlations, or real world accessment of the impact of something... >because it's always worth doing something right, no matter how small. This one is different argument though. This one is moral, the previous one (I responded to) was about efficacy. But it, too, is problematic: even in moral terms, it's not "always worth doing something right, no matter how small", given opportunity cost.