I find this article quite hard to read (poor writing, grammatical errors making sentences incoherent), but the key thesis seems to be that because psychology ha

I find this article quite hard to read (poor writing, grammatical errors making sentences incoherent), but the key thesis seems to be that because psychology has embraced empiricism as its philosophy of science, and not required any theory to explain and interpret empirical results, it is uniquely susceptible to replication failure. In a sense, the replication crisis in psychology is string evidence that empiricism is an incorrect theory of science: if it were, psychology would be doing great—just as well as theory-laden sciences like physics, chemistry and biology. Instead, what we see is that the more a science takes coherent, broad theories seriously, the better if fares as a scientific endeavor. This matches a Popperian/Deutchian philosophy of science. The most interesting thing about the crisis is that it is, effectively, a scientific experiment about the nature of science.