Yes, statistical insignificance doesn't "prove" the null hypothesis, it just fails to reject it. It's a subtle, but sometime misunderstood distinction. It's a m

Yes, statistical insignificance doesn't "prove" the null hypothesis, it just fails to reject it. It's a subtle, but sometime misunderstood distinction. It's a measure of how big the effect size is and how often you'd expect to see it just by chance rather than due to the variables you're measuring. If it's a really extreme difference, we expect it to happen less often just by chance alone than if it's a really miniscule difference. >Which would be worthy to know but no journal usually takes this research because it doesn't make the headlines. That's usually correct, which gives rise to all kinds of issues like the article talks about. It can result in a lot of wasted time (when you're conducting what you "think" is a new experiment, but it's been done many times but unpublished because it doesn't provide statistically significant results). It provides little incentive for replication, which can lead to stronger conclusions about the results than may be warranted, etc.