That "completely wrong" is a bit harsh on biologists.
Firstly, it is a lot harder to repeat experiments in biology than in particle physics, as (as far as we know), all electrons are the same.
Secondly, biologists will, in general, not make bold claims. A paper "a possible link between X and Z" that works with p>0.95 and states that further research is needed is not a lie; the popular press makes it a lie by changing it to "OMG: X CAUSES Y".
I know it's a lot harder to repeat experiments in biology than in particle physics - I said that in my post.
Just because someone uses weasel words ("possible") doesn't change the end result: It's a wrong result.
I'm not blaming them - I understand better results are not possible. But it doesn't change the fact that a tremendous number of results are wrong.
It doesn't help that they often search for very subtle results. "It helps, but only a little." It also doesn't help that everyone responds differently to things. It makes the research very hard.
Anyway, I was just explaining why p95 is not accepted anywhere else except biology - biology just doesn't have any other choice. They don't prefer such low results.
Firstly, it is a lot harder to repeat experiments in biology than in particle physics, as (as far as we know), all electrons are the same.
Secondly, biologists will, in general, not make bold claims. A paper "a possible link between X and Z" that works with p>0.95 and states that further research is needed is not a lie; the popular press makes it a lie by changing it to "OMG: X CAUSES Y".