You're right about my claim being approximate - the biggest problem with what I said was "assuming independence." If you're replicating a study, it's definitel

You're right about my claim being approximate - the biggest problem with what I said was "assuming independence." If you're replicating a study, it's definitely not going to be a completely independent event. Usually, you copy at least part of the methods, and that right there is a major dependency. As for the definition of P, that's something they address in the original article, and you are in agreement with the authors: P is _definitely_ not "the probability of that result." In its interpretation, P is the chance that you accept the null hypothesis when it is false (i.e. there is no effect, but your data randomly showed an effect).