  In a recent opinion article, Muff et al. recapitulate well-known objections
to the Neyman-Pearson Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) framework and
call for reforming our practices in statistical reporting. We agree with them
on several important points: the significance threshold P<0.05 is only a
convention, chosen as a compromise between type I and II error rates;
transforming the p-value into a dichotomous statement leads to a loss of
information; and p-values should be interpreted together with other statistical
indicators, in particular effect sizes and their uncertainty. In our view, a
lot of progress in reporting results can already be achieved by keeping these
three points in mind. We were surprised and worried, however, by Muff et al.'s
suggestion to interpret the p-value as a "gradual notion of evidence". Muff et
al. recommend, for example, that a P-value > 0.1 should be reported as "little
or no evidence" and a P-value of 0.001 as "strong evidence" in favor of the
alternative hypothesis H1.
