>“replication crisis” were small-effect-size social science experiments that fundamentally weren’t that important outside of popular science news. I don't know

>“replication crisis” were small-effect-size social science experiments that fundamentally weren’t that important outside of popular science news. I don't know that this is accurate. Some of these make their way to large-scale public policy, or give bona fides to people who craft far-reaching policy. This includes changes to 401k allocations to car-insurance rates and other mundane, but consequential policies. The truth is most of science is not important outside of popular science news. So we shouldn't be surprised that the bulk of replication crises are also in the same category. Claiming this means the replication crises is not really impactful may be a case of base rate neglect. It's also important to note that your example of medical replication is a relatively highly regulated area, where most other science is much less so.