Not surprisingly there are a lot of persons rather uncomfortable with the random event?s nature . . . The anti-NHST people has a handful arguments that unfortunately has some impact on insufficiently learned ones. Here one of them was chosen: What is the usefulness of a tool that, gathering a sufficiently data, we are always leading to reject a Null Hypotheses? Not to reject is surely synonymous of enough data collected. They are absolutely right. . . except on a `mince´ detail: the usefulness. ____________________
What could be counter claimed? ___We are before the result of a concrete experiment which is depending on all conditions conditioning it. Sample size for a physicist is like a resolution power: if small or large it does disallow to detect little things or allows to. I do not feel surprised if a small sized sample admits/not rejects almost whatever hypotheses; and likely if very large ones are able to see no mater small differences. Anti-NHST people seem it was demanded that a difference (of parameters) must be noticed whatever the number of items sampled. Foolish. I can state that a sample can carry a lot of information about its parameters if sufficiently large or contrarily do not if small or not random.