I think you're not quite right with the timeline here. IIRC, when "Thinking, Fast and Slow" first came out, the research was considered pretty settled and had h

I think you're not quite right with the timeline here. IIRC, when "Thinking, Fast and Slow" first came out, the research was considered pretty settled and had had lots of replications. It's only a few years afterwards that the replication crisis really hit psychology in a big way, and especially priming. So with the benefit of hindsight, yes, he presented faulty research - but he didn't (and couldn't) have known it at the time. (Of course, if the lesson is that the entire field should be considered skeptically, I don't think I'd disagree)