[inglor_cz]

It is not that simple. We already have a replication crisis; some data out there is wrong, possibly the one that refute some wild idea.

In the ideal world, everything would be replicated and retested at least a few times. Practically, we do not have the resources, and sometimes other interests come into play. For example, those of some industry to fund studies that refute some wild idea that threatens their business. How many studies on safety of sugar are paid by Coca Cola?

[ramraj07]

We do have a replication crisis. But what you're saying is that because we have a replication crisis all prior data about basically everything is moot. As far as I know the replication crisis is most predominant in psycology and social sciences. In biology the replication crisis a bit more interesting, and while it needs addressing, it's fair to say that homeopathy seems to have been reasonably thoroughly debunked. However, in the spirit of exactly what I said above, never say never. If someone proposes a new type of experiment that can explore the homeopathy hypothesis further, that should definitely be at least slightly encouraged. The question is, what experiment DO YOU want to do? Double blind control trial? More basic than that, at the molecular level!

[inglor_cz]

> . But what you're saying is that because we have a replication crisis all prior data about basically everything is moot.

That was not my intention. My intention was to say that a single study might not be good enough as a refutation. BTW one of the largest proponents of re-checking studies that were once considered reliable is a medical doctor, John Ioannidis. It is not just soft science that suffers from the problem.

Given that we are really short on money (and, with regard to ideas, always will be - it is cheaper to produce ideas than to test them even cursorily, much less thoroughly), every proposed mechanism will have large downsides. I do not have a proposal.