I accidentally deleted this (post 4) trying to copy the link for another thread; apologies for repost and bump.
Blockquote
In this article, we discuss the value of p value and explain why it should not be abandoned nor should the conventional threshold of 0.05 be modified.
It seems to me they continue the confusion between \alpha and p. To continue the use of a 0.05 threshold is analogous to saying the same prior should be used in every problem, regardless of the precision of the study, or the plausibility of the alternative in question. The experimenter’s local \alpha has very little bearing on my personal \alpha, much like his/her prior has minimal relevance to my own.
The most objectionable feature of these interpretations of statistical methods is they manipulate the reader into either shutting down the critical faculty entirely, or offering unhelpful and nonsensical critiques that do not aid future researchers in designing protocols that provide the relevant information to eventually settle the question.
The entire debate about the “right” p value threshold is misplaced. Professor Harry Crane wrote a persuasive paper criticizing the idea that lowering the cutoff would improve research that deserves attention.