P values are not as reliable as many scientists assume (2014)

Absolutely. But that is why this is where we start. Before science, we had no way to invalidate illusions and validate what was real because assumption on their own are neither. They are naked intuitions pending validation. For the longest time we were unable to validate them and we ended up with the mess we had before science. Basically, no one would ever have made it to Mars.

But with scientific validation knowledge becomes more than just an assumption or an intuition based on an experience, or a theory we came up with that we find ingenious because, well, we came up with it. By overcoming our assumptions we achieve objectivity, universality, and factuality. We discover knowledge that has rigid practical persistence. In this process something transcends from our subjective personal ideas to becoming objective impersonal facts. There is no self in science. And it is from this arduous feat that technology is born. There is nothing in this monitor or the components of this phone that are based on assumptions. These devices are selfless.

"Assumption" is as evil a word as "metaphysics" and "subjective" in science. Yet, there are still people who use the word as a synonym for axiom. This is simply bad word-choice. The correct term here would be "premise" and you used it yourself. Theories can have premises, but not assumptions. Are the premises assumed? No. They are granted.

Since this is HN, here is an analogy to software. A program that assumes certain behavior code or of external APIs will be rigged with bugs. Every aspect of it's execution must be tested, and the assumptions of the programmer must be eliminated by production. Of course, being human, we start with assumptions - such as "this would be the perfect library for this project". The "assumptions" that we being with however, eventually manifest themselves into "premises". And in software, these are the dependencies of a program. It is only natural for software to be dependent on other software. What is unnatural and anti-software would be to make assumptions about other software especially within its own execution.

The path from the assumptions of subjective raw experience to the subjective consumption of reliable technology is paved with the work of competent scientists (and analogously, by competent programmers).

> Given your definition, I don't think anything we know would be considered a fact.

If fact is to mean truth, then sure. But there is an abundance of statements that have been backed by evidence. And all these statements are truer than most. Measurably truthier, rather, and that is what counts because that leave room for progress. This is a better definition of "fact".

No, they are saying "science is based on assumption, but in this case 'many scientists' were making the wrong assumptions." The title should have said "scientists find errors in p-values as premises." Assumptions are avoided, not depended upon. Bad assumptions would certainly lead to irreplicable experiments also.

The distinction you make between science and its experiments is not a common distinction. If science = experiments, then you totally agree that this kind of science is bad science. Which was precisely my point.

That only 36% were points to deep, fundamental errors.