Hacker News Reader

That's not right, a negative study often still can give evidence that something is true, but it just didn't meet the p=.05 threshold.

View on HN

p<=0.05 is so easy to achieve for actual positive results (just increase sample size) that I don't think it's productive to treat any result with p>0.05 as positive evidence for any purpose other than deciding to rerun the study with a bigger sample size.

That's not true at all, that's a weird generalization that's patently false.

Take things like even certain physics propositions (e.g. discovering new particles) -- can take billions of dollars building a new reactor and years of experiments to find a result.

Anything medical or psychological also can take this result. If a chemical reduces your iq by 5 points over 10 years, it might not be able to do a study that finds that result on an academic budget.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com