Thanks for posting Raffout, Slykes & Davybaby. Nearly the first...

Thanks for posting Raffout, Slykes & Davybaby. Nearly the first replies that aren't ad hominem, or just the jowl shuddering conniptions of heavy mouth breathers.

I take the point about inflating p-values in assessing the worth of research. It's a valid one.

It's also valid to think about whether a relatively consistent meaning of the phrase "statistically significant" has value...
It's probably worth thinking about what happens if more research groups silently water down the meaning of that phrase yet continue to use it as if they haven't. Kind of a cui bono, or cui gaslighting sort of quesiton.
Why stop at .1 for example?