bcdarwin
However, p-hacking isn't the only threat to replicability: in this case the authors have reported a large set of tests, so we can ask why they didn't control family-wise error via Bonferroni or friends (in which case the reported statistical significance almost certainly disappears). Also, I suspect if you fit Bayesian models (either separately or a hierarchical model) using reasonably narrow priors based on what we know about human sensitivity to magnetic fields, how much other senses are affected by sex differences, hunger, etc., and not starting each test assuming a complete state of ignorance of the world, then the data would be compatible with no effect.
> In mammals, this is what guides birds to migrate. It's far more than that and the earth undergoes these field changes every interval with profound impact on life on earth.
> You and I are all made out of Earth and the things we eat and breathe are all Earth itself. There's just no way that we can brush off this phenomena with pedantry.
I agree that biology is profound, but pseudoscientific generalities like this confuse rather than clarify. [Likely typo: birds are not mammals.]
You can invent post hoc justifications for almost any positive conclusion (although this one is weak since the authors admit the effect cannot be detected in individuals, only in aggregate).
[edit: you can even p-hack and retroactively justify your way to entire subfields; see famously https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-rev...]