When you repeat things over and over, even with an increasingly large sample, you artificially increase the chances of replicating something purely by chance. W

When you repeat things over and over, even with an increasingly large sample, you artificially increase the chances of replicating something purely by chance. When papers are published they tend to publish ranges for the expected strength of their findings. What replication studies have found is that these ranges are not representative of reality in most cases. It's not about 'these papers are not infallible' but 'these papers seem to have misrepresented the strength of their findings.' And like the article mentions, even with this rather generous method of trying to 'replicate' studies, they found huge chunks of papers could not be replicated to anything like the strength originally suggested. The unstated implication here is that it seems a very large chunk of social science researchers are faking their numbers, likely through p-hacking, to create attention (and journal) grabbing headlines that are, for lack of a better word, simply fake.