This is a very old argument. I got my bachelor's degree in psychology at Harvard in 1993, and was told repeatedly that p-tests are abused, overused, and not terribly useful.

To my mind, the most hackable flaw is that the number of subjects in the study is a term in the denominator of the p-value calculation. Any study with a sufficiently large sample will find "significance" with p<.05, but it won't be meaningful.

We were taught that "effect size" measures were crucial to understanding and interpreting results. If you have p<.05 but a tiny effect size, you're likely not seeing a meaningful difference.