I want to agree here because this comment seems to be misunderstood. In science as cumulative evidence, studies can in fact be harmful. If they are wrong or hi

I want to agree here because this comment seems to be misunderstood. In science as cumulative evidence, studies can in fact be harmful. If they are wrong or highly ambiguous, or if they make it hard to uncover errors, then they make it more difficult for future research to be correct. The reasons include publication bias (rejecting studies with null effects and/or contradicting previous literature), p-hacking and so on. That's why it is so important to apply rigorous standards everywhere: Transparency, data sharing, peer review, replication, pre-registration. In other words: There is no alternative to open science.