of mistaken interpretation of a “failure to reject” result as confirmation of the null hypothesis, thereby privileging the null.
Isn’t that a major criticism of NHST, that almost all users and interpreters of it reverse the conditionality—a fallacy/confusion pointed by Cohen, Gigerenzer, and almost every paper I cited there?
I think that’s a separate mistake. This paper shows Pr[data|H0] > 0.05. The standard mistake you refer to switches this to falsely conclude Pr[H0|data] > 0.05. However, neither of these is remotely indicative of H0 being true.
Isn’t that a major criticism of NHST, that almost all users and interpreters of it reverse the conditionality—a fallacy/confusion pointed by Cohen, Gigerenzer, and almost every paper I cited there?
I think that’s a separate mistake. This paper shows Pr[data|H0] > 0.05. The standard mistake you refer to switches this to falsely conclude Pr[H0|data] > 0.05. However, neither of these is remotely indicative of H0 being true.