That this isn’t well-known amongst the general public is a disgrace, but the “scientific method” as carried out by academic careerists has long been only a poor substitute for real science:
It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous, and tests of medical dangers or treatments are often contradictory and confusing.
From sciencenews.org. Then follows the usual errors relating to interpretation of hypothesis tests and other applied frequentist gunk. There is an interesting point made about how randomisation isn’t all that (although what the alternative should be is anyone’s guess), before… behold!
Such sad statistical situations suggest that the marriage of science and math may be desperately in need of counseling. Perhaps it could be provided by the Rev. Thomas Bayes.
A lovely line. Whether this latest example of the litany against the standard operating procedure of too many scientists from all disciplines will change anything more than the previous attempts to do so is moot.