I could see a valid argument for only doing science that will be worth replicating, because if you don't bother to replicate you aren't really proving anything.

I could see a valid argument for only doing science that will be worth replicating, because if you don't bother to replicate you aren't really proving anything. Exactly. A lot of the science I've done should not be replicated. If someone told me they wanted to replicate it, I would urge them not to. Not because I have something to hide. But because some other lab did something strictly superior that should be replicated instead. Or because the experiment asked the wrong questions. Or because the experiment itself could be pretty easily re-designed to avoid some pretty major threats. The problem is that is that hindsight really is 20/20. It's kind of impossible to ONLY do good science. So it's important to have the facility to recognize when science (including your own) isn't good -- or is good but not as good as something else -- and is therefore not worth replicating. I guess the two key insights are: 1. Not all science is worth replicating (either because it's too expensive or for some other reason). 2. Replication doesn't necessarily reduce doubt (particularly in the case of poorly designed experiments, or when the experiment asks the wrong questions).