The gold standard of science is a different experiment whose findings agree with the findings of the first. Replication is much less valuable, scientifically a

The gold standard of science is a different experiment whose findings agree with the findings of the first. Replication is much less valuable, scientifically and professionally, than non-scientists think it is. Simply repeating a published investigation runs a much higher risk of repeating any experimental errors or faulty assumptions that might have harmed the first one. The whole point of science is to find knowledge that persists beyond one particular perspective; knowledge that is independently verifiable. Rote replication is not the best way to find this type of knowledge. As for peer review, its purpose is simply to sharpen the communication of a completed study. Even if every study was replicated, the papers would still benefit from peer review.