I intend to actually read the full paper, and appreciate you bringing it to my attention.

"...the high rate of nonreplication (lack of confirmation) of research discoveries is a consequence of the convenient, yet ill-founded strategy of claiming conclusive research findings solely on the basis of a single study assessed by formal statistical significance, typically for a p-value less than 0.05."

I recall an aphorism that seems appropriate: 'Lies, damned lies, and statistics.'

Science done the way I described it above isn't about irreproducible studies claiming nothing more than statistical relevance, but demonstrable and reproducible measurements. Some degree of statistical relevance is superable, but not IMHO for studies that do not involve substantial data. I mentioned 10k samples, which is a large sample size that precludes at least one of the potential criteria, small sample size, of studies that are false.

I note, as you find intolerable, that some funding on science is intended to produce false papers. It is notable that this is driving scientists to actually study the problem, as this paper reveals.

Thanks!