I am making a single claim, that shouldn't be this controversial. Not sure why you are angrily misrepresenting what I've stated.
Here it is again, more generically: as the p-alpha level for rejecting the null hypothesis decreases, the tendency for Type-2 errors increases.
Do you disagree?
In a world where time and resources are not a factor, an infinite amount of data could be collected to ensure both types of error are minimized. In such a world, alpha can be made arbitrarily small. In worlds that have limited resources to dedicate to experiments, a judgement needs to be made as to whether we are more comfortable with Type-1 or Type-2 errors. If for a given experiment it is decided to set an extremely low alpha (e.g. 7-sigma) it is being implied that we would rather preserve the prevailing theory (null) than reject it in favor of the experimental data.
If a social science experiment was funded at the level of CERN/LHB I have no doubt they would choose a more restrictive alpha, and likewise if LHB had less resources they would likely drop their alpha accordingly based on some power analysis. I say this as someone with a phd in a hard science. Obviously it doesn't excuse the field completely for their reproducibility issues. They should make a more concerted effort with their limited funds, perhaps using the model of particle physicists who pool funds to make a fewer number of experiments more rigorous through higher amount of data collection. But this is all aside the small point I originally intended to make..