Not really disagreeing with you necessarily, but you can hack pre-registration too, in a way that becomes more tenable with smaller studies, which benefit less from pre-registration anyway.

The tables are misleading too: of course p(h0=T|p<.05) is going to be about 0.50 if your power is 0.50 and p(h1) = 0.10. That is maybe the bigger problem than p-values per se. Also, he fails to compute the other cell, which is p(h0=T|p>.05), which ends up being about 0.95. The problem in that table is have no power to detect anything.

In real life, you don't know p(h0)--that's the point of doing the study. So Bayesianism doesn't really help you.

The real problem is lack of power.

True, but the article was making a point about "even if we set aside p-hacking for a moment", so I was going with that. But I agree, pre-registration is important as well.

Pre-registration?