This statement belies a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics on your part.

If you're really good at statistics, you can just intuit what seems like a sufficient N. This is actually a powerful statistical method because you can vary your intuition depending on whether you want to believe the study was well-powered or not, enabling you to easily discard Bad Evidence and include Good Evidence.

Few understand this.

You don't intuit it, you calculate it. If you claim to be able to predict coin flips with a specific accuracy I can give you the exact number of trails N you need to be x% confident.

If you claim 90% accuracy and I want to be 95% confident with the standard alpha of 0.05 you need 38 trials.

No, that’s utter nonsense. Statistical power is well defined and the required N to reliably detect an effect is a function of its effect size, which is the thing that wannabe statisticians don’t understand.

> you can vary your intuition depending on whether you want to believe the study

I suspect it is deliberate nonsense.

> I suspect it is deliberate nonsense.

But is that your intuition talking?