[leot]

The conclusions of this video depend on an idealized view (and thus a poor model) of research and science. In fact, there are many different kinds of results (associated with different levels of confidence and which almost all require a nuanced interpretation in order to be properly understood) and many different kinds of researchers. The best results, across many fields, are rarely if ever single papers with a single experiment with p<0.05. The good ones have multiple mutually-confirming experiments with much smaller p-values. And often for the very best results, p-value-style analyses are redundant: what would be the p-value associated with the line that Hubel and Wiesel claim was triggering the firing of their cat's retinal ganglion cell [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOHayh06LJ4]? Does it even matter?

[Edit: Parenthesis in first sentence, for clarity]