I've been a regular reader of the blog since its inception. I don't know how much actual posting I can contribute -- I have found some of the greatest value from the blog comes from our guest commentators, such as the current discussion of statistical significance.
While I have for some time agreed with the commentators' contentions, I would add one perspective from an institutional/legal approach. Any decision rule, be it a law or regulation or standard for evaluating research is going to be inaccurate. It can't take into account the diversity of circumstances to which the rule would be applied. And the reason for having such a rule is that it will still be more accurate than the free-for-all of unrestricted case-by-case evaluation. While the statistical significance rule is substantially flawed, what would be better? Professor Henkel has provided valuable explanations of how the standard is misused inferentially, but I wonder if there is not a better standard (rule) that could be deployed for research. I think the overemphasis on statistical significance will continue until a better rule is designed.