> You can use this reasoning to dismiss [...] probably 95% of all scientific results from economic/medical/social/nutricion/climate science. Most researchers a

> You can use this reasoning to dismiss [...] probably 95% of all scientific results from economic/medical/social/nutricion/climate science. Most researchers are incentived to churn out as many papers as possible. Most people who are making research grant decisions have little incentive to give grants to substantial science over insubstantial science that merely looks good. After all they're unlikely to face career consequences for funding science which doesn't replicate. Many of the people involved in the production of science are disincentivezed to point out problems with the process of science because science funding depends on science being highly esteemed, which only indirectly and with significant time lag depends on the effectiveness of science. All this leads me to the conclusion that, yes, it is entirely possible that 95% of science in those fields (and maybe others) is junk.