> also have problems with publication bias, as do all sorts of other scientific studies. This is a problem with science at the moment There is also the "reprod

> also have problems with publication bias, as do all sorts of other scientific studies. This is a problem with science at the moment There is also the "reproducibility crisis" which can be very closely related to publication bias, since a reproduced result may be even less remarkable than a negative result. > The ambiguities in the field are not because people are just stupid. There are very intelligent people who have been working on these things At the risk of sounding flippant, I am reminded of the {Forrest Gump} quote "Stupid is as stupid does" (which is, of course, an update of earlier aphorisms with similar meaning). To whit, in light of all the well-understood, self-admitted, fundamental problems with science at the moment, that are at least partially due to the behavior of the participants, at what point is the innate intelligence of those participants no longer a defense against an accusation of "just stupid"?