The Fisher and Neyman-Pearson approaches to testing statistical hypotheses are compared with respect to their attitudes to the interpretation of the outcome, to power, to conditioning, and to the use of fixed significance levels. It is argued that despite basic philosophical differences, in their main practical aspects the two theories are complementary rather than contradictory and that a unified approach is possible that combines the best features of both. As applications, the controversies about the Behrens-Fisher problem and the comparison of two binomials (2 × 2 tables) are considered from the present point of view.