  The replication crisis has prompted many to call for statistical reform
within the psychological sciences. Here we examine issues within Frequentist
statistics that may have led to the replication crisis, and we examine the
alternative---Bayesian statistics---that many have suggested as a replacement.
The Frequentist approach and the Bayesian approach offer radically different
perspectives on evidence and inference with the Frequentist approach
prioritising error control and the Bayesian approach offering a formal method
for quantifying the relative strength of evidence for hypotheses. We suggest
that rather than mere statistical reform, what is needed is a better
understanding of the different modes of statistical inference and a better
understanding of how statistical inference relates to scientific inference.
