>"My experience comes from trying to replicate science that simply isn't reproducible in ways that are not possible to understand from reading a publication."

>"My experience comes from trying to replicate science that simply isn't reproducible in ways that are not possible to understand from reading a publication." Right, this is because no one has done the science. Like Feynman said, someone needs to figure out all the stuff we need to keep track of to be able to do this. I personally saw no interest in doing that (pretty basic stuff like "rat gets more food when giving this drug, therefore the drug made them smarter/healthier"; why not more hungry/motivated, etc?). It was very far from perfection. It was that someone comes up with an assay and mentions some of the limitations at the end of the paper. Then for the next 40 years no one checks this, everyone just continues to run the unverified assay and assume it measures what they want. >"I don't fault researchers for not doing perfect science." I just call it science vs not science, with a hard rule that in science people need to be able to independently replicate your work. Otherwise I call it research (a superset of science), and refer to the people doing it as researchers. I think this is neutral enough, while still allowing the distinction between science vs not. Mainly, if it really is the case, I want it made clear that the current culture/environment/whatever is not allowing a scientific approach to be attempted. Maybe this other method can get somewhere, I dunno. But it does not have a proven history of success like science.