Are you saying this based on actual evidence or based on supposition and anecdote? The oft repeated claim is the replication crisis as you mention but this isn

Are you saying this based on actual evidence or based on supposition and anecdote? The oft repeated claim is the replication crisis as you mention but this isn’t limited to social science nor is social science the worst offender. Replication rates for psychology have ranged between 36 [1] and 62% [2] in a few metas I just pulled up A notable paper in biology is the Amgen paper that shows an 11% replication rate for landmark cancer research[3]. There’s a paper from Bayer that shows only about 25% of published preclinical trials could be validated [4] Similarly in economics there have been papers finding replication rates of 54% [5] So maybe the issue is not a wildlife ecology study from the 40s that was definitively debunked by a biology study in the 90s. Maybe it’s p-hacking, journals that focus entirely on publishing novel research over replication (and grant funders that act similarly), refusals to share data and methodological details/process transparency, etc that apply to all fields. [1] DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z [3]10.1136/bmj.e2555 [4]10.1038/nrd3439-c1 [5]10.1038/s41562-024-02062-9