> "Scientists bad because I don't understand statistics" is boring. Just because you decided that is a meaningless variable does not mean that it is.

It’s literally a comic about how spurious results arise.

I understand what you are trying to get at with your insistence on pedantically misreading the comic, but you’re missing the forest for the trees.

> Your null hypothesis is rejected, you publish and continue trying to explain why.

In this case the “why” is “we ran so many experiments that a false positive was inevitable”.

> Otherwise you stop and try something different.

“Only publish the positive results” is exactly the problem. This is terrible science because it magnifies false positives and hides the negatives (false or not). Do enough experiments and eventually you get a positive result for basically anything.