NHST was always intended to provide evidence within
a corpus of replicated research. institutionalized careerism creates disincentives for science to work that way in practice.
it's actually consistent with the NHST paradigm to treat any given result with skepticism; the degree of skepticism depends on many things, some of which are statistical and some of which are domain-specific. but skepticism is not the same as assuming invalidity. imperfect experiments are still (expensive) evidence for something.
imo, what you should reject entirely are media reports (usually based on somebody's PR team) that try to tell you to do anything based on one study or the work of a single lab.
it's actually consistent with the NHST paradigm to treat any given result with skepticism; the degree of skepticism depends on many things, some of which are statistical and some of which are domain-specific. but skepticism is not the same as assuming invalidity. imperfect experiments are still (expensive) evidence for something.
imo, what you should reject entirely are media reports (usually based on somebody's PR team) that try to tell you to do anything based on one study or the work of a single lab.