I think we can maybe inject a little bit of extra nuance here. Not every field is the same, they vary massively in size, level of external influence, and compl

I think we can maybe inject a little bit of extra nuance here. Not every field is the same, they vary massively in size, level of external influence, and complexity in subject matter. Psychology suffers more than most. It's a large field, so competition to get noticed is likely high. There is money to be made, as discussed in the article, so it struggles with influences outside of pure scientific inquiry, and they have no chance of describing their theories in terms of pure component mathematics. Contrast that with ocean and atmospheric sciences. It is a tiny and very insular field, so the rat race works very differently. This also protects them from outside influences, and a lot of the major underlying physical and biological processes involved can be modeled with mathematics that have been demonstrated to be predictive. It's just easier for some fields to reliably produce higher quality work. I think this is a case where blanket skepticism is just lazy. Every field suffers some level of a reproducibility issue, but some fields are better able to self select for a variety of reasons.