Great topic. P-values are so easy to misinterpret, in fact, that I think the article makes the very error that it warns against: >"If it’s under 5%, p < 0.05,

Great topic. P-values are so easy to misinterpret, in fact, that I think the article makes the very error that it warns against: >"If it’s under 5%, p < 0.05, we can be reasonably certain that our result probably implies a stacked coin." By itself, a p-value is NOT enough to imply that the null hypothesis is false. In fact, if I flipped a regularly looking coin and saw 7 heads, I'd still be very confident that the coin is fair, because weighted coins are so rare. Later, the article correctly warns: >P-value misconception #5: "1 − (p-value) is not the probability of the alternative hypothesis being true (see (1))." P.S. I think the weasel words in the first quoted sentence, "reasonably certain" and "probably implies," show that the author is at least subconsciously aware of this logical error. :)