On one side I kinda hate when people from other fields try to criticize what I do without having the slightest clue. And phylosophists are the first on the list, since they most vocally criticize things they totally don't know anything about.

On the other side now I've been hired to work in a soft-science field to do my math and algorithms and stuff. I cry everyday telling that everything they're doing is wrong and they simply scoff it off telling me: "chill bro, these are accepted procedures in this field". For the love of god, I've shown you that simply removing a single point from your data changes the results from a "significant" positive correlation to a "significant" negative correlation. I've given you references that demonstrate a priori and a posteriori that what you do is simply wrong, what else do you need??

But hey... there's peer review (=circlejerk) where you are judged by people who believe in the same set of errors so what's the problem..... Ask yourself questions if your field published "breaktrough" discoveries since 1994 and not a single thing ever came out of it outside of papers.

So... when somebody tells you that using a significance level of 0.05 is absurd listen to him/her!!!! Or, better yet, don't even look at significance levels, they're not meant to be interpreted at all.

Anyway, I know that often people from outside a field look for weaknesses of that field and then misinterpret the whole shabang for their own agenda, saying that 100% sure things must be false and made up theories instead "haven't been disproven". Happens everyday with alternative medicine impostors that claim that since drug studies are most often flawed then their alternative method must be true and super-proven things like vaccines or aspirines must be bad.

(sorry, rant from somebody that feels like he's prostituting his scientific integrity for money)