[naringas]

a lot of what goes by as 'science' is really just religion with a "this is not religion" facade. (for example all 'science' with a "replication problem").

At the core, both religious people as well as scientific people just want certainty of whatever they believe (also known as 'the truth'). They just go about it in different ways.

[acqq]

Behind claims of the "replication problem" are different phenomena, and some claims there are themselves more wrong than some other. Specifically, one specific person who made his name of claiming "replication problem" as bigger than his peers believed later himself obviously proved to be a tool in promoting unsupported claims under a disguise of scientific work: John Ioannidis, who accepted money from a billionaire to publicly claim, and even write papers, that the pandemics will be magically over in no time.

On another side, there are surely known problems in social "sciences" (which by definition aren't those which establish "hard" physical, chemical or biologic facts, but which can surely be helped by these facts and by the tools developed in the "harder" sciences) but the problems there existed since these areas of study existed and some are inherent to them.

[tikej]

> At the core, both religious people as well as scientific people just want certainty of whatever they believe (also known as 'the truth'). They just go about it in different ways.

There is a tiny difference that you don’t seem to mention. While everyone would like to be right, science people change their views provided with evidence that they are wrong, while religious people don’t, they have dogmas. If someone doesn’t change they only claim to be “scientific people”.

Sure, if science is non-replicable than it can’t and shouldn’t be called science. It bothers me too about social sciences and psychology, but the problem in this disciplines is that objects of their study are extremely complicated.