How has been this simplification transformed into a dogma that confuses researchers and threatens with logical process of statistical inference for decades? The blame is distributed in equal parts between two implied communities:

Researchers take refuge in this rule that exempts them from reasoning and allows them to publish the conclusions of their works with seemingly convincing sentences.

Many statisticians confuse decision-making with acquisition of knowledge and translate this confusion to researchers by teaching them rules to make decisions where there is nothing to decide.

It depends on us statisticians that thousands of researchers continue using these ridiculous formulas or, on the contrary, are able to understand statistical inference without ambiguity and to apply concepts correctly. The disagreement should cease among those in favour of the tests of significance [4] and the Tests of Hypothesis [8]. All of them must be aware that both approaches are valid, each one in the context for which it was designed. And researchers, who do not know statistical inference and depend in this aspect on the statistician, should be taught the difference between acquiring knowledge and making decisions.