Comment by nickpsecurity
17 hours ago
Part of replication is skeptical review. That's also part of the scientific method. If we're not doing thorough review and replication, we're not really doing science. It's a lot of faith in people incentivized to do sloppy or dishonest work.
Edit: I just read your article linked upthread. It was really good. I don't think we disagree except I say we need to attempt the steps of science wherever sensible and there's human/political problems trying to corrupt them. I try to seperately address those by changing hearts with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Cuz self-interest won't fix science.)
So, we need the replications. We also need to address whatever issues would pop up with them.
Yes, that's true. In theory, by the time it gets to the replication stage a paper has already been reviewed. In practice a replication is often the first time a paper is examined adversarially. There might be a useful form of hybrid here, like paying professional skeptics to review papers. The peer review concept academia works on is a very naive setup of the sort you'd expect given the prevailing ideology ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"). Paying professionals to do it would be a good start, but only if there are consequences to a failed review, which there just aren't today.