Clearly, for there to be chronic scientific progress, there must be some value in experimental practice. And yet widespread irreproducibility of results negate

Clearly, for there to be chronic scientific progress, there must be some value in experimental practice. And yet widespread irreproducibility of results negates that value, by definition. So, where is the progress coming from? Your argument that "there must be a robust and explanatory theory that goes along with experimental results" helps make sense of TFA, which otherwise presents as a paradox, or a ruse to excuse shoddy practices. The presence of a viable theory is a useful heuristic for sorting useful experimental practice from less useful. At least, I imagine it is. How can we know for sure? Has anyone published a meta analysis that checks for this? And has that meta analysis been independently reproduced?