Statistics are incredibly potent as a tool. But that's what they are, a tool. Nobody would trust you simply because you wielded a hammer, but with statistics some people would let you fuck their wife if you showed them it was statistically beneficial.
There's a crisis brewing in the sciences partially because of how powerful and simple statistical analysis had become. More and information is being produced by less and less skilled scientists (just on the basis of availablity). I've worked on a few publicized medical studies, both systemic reviews and clinical, and it's been really enlightening as to how the shiny exterior and academic valour is in reality paper thin.
In essence: the groundwork is terribly imprecise and then is made to look very pretty by a team of people who often don't know or understand the core material.
There is usually one competent person leading the entire thing, but they are so bogged down by trying to get grants and have their stuff published that they aren't really involved.
Deary me, I'm ranting again. Anyway... Sorry, Ryan, but you won't make it here. I have a study on your hammies with a p value of 0.001. Pack your stuff and the security will escort you out of the premises.