I agree with the diagnosis. The big problem is that it is not possible to be sure that some study accounts for all possible confounding factors, unless you hav

I agree with the diagnosis. The big problem is that it is not possible to be sure that some study accounts for all possible confounding factors, unless you have a correct theory that allows you to determine what factors might be confounding factors. Statistical methodology alone cannot tell you this. Reproducibility by researchers who know no more about the experimental setup than what was published is a better way of guarding against this than upping the significance hurdle. Experienced researchers may have a long history of ignoring confounding factors - I am not sure maturity matters much. I think the best time to have your complacency about constructing statistical investogations torn apart is while you are doing your PhD.