It's a time tested heuristic. If a result cannot be communicated well enough for others to replicate or if it strongly depends upon local conditions (doesn't re

It's a time tested heuristic. If a result cannot be communicated well enough for others to replicate or if it strongly depends upon local conditions (doesn't really matter which reason), we should either focus on something else or figure out why. If there is no independent replication, there is no chance to learn either of the above and no reason to have confidence we know what is going on. I see no quagmire, it is all very straightforward. I will not believe my own results until others replicate them. Even once is not enough to hang my hat on. What alternative approach do you use to judge whether an observation is worth theorizing about?