This is just you presenting your preexisting beliefs. We saw a widely publicized and long career of false data in biology over the past couple of years followi

This is just you presenting your preexisting beliefs. We saw a widely publicized and long career of false data in biology over the past couple of years following roughly the same structure (just sticking garbage data into excel spreadsheets). Methodological errors and publication bias are also widespread in CS. When I was in grad school, the method I was told to use to choose tools was to choose the second best tool in a paper, since the authors' tool was invariably the best but their evaluations were inherently less likely to transition into my work. Drawing a further conclusion that whole entire fields of research are simply untrustworthy based on media coverage of bad actors, especially as a nonexpert, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The field that is actually tackling the reproducibility crisis even in a small way is Psychology. This is one reason why there are so many "X doesn't actually replicate" headlines. Yes, replication studies should be even more common. But it is hard to conclude that the social sciences are uniquely horrible when Psychology is actually ahead of the curve here.