[analog31]

I get what you're saying, but even within the more reputable sciences, the body of known or published results is peppered with results that will fail to replicate. They have not all been identified. There will be more. The good results are mixed with junk results yet somehow science progresses. The robustness of science has to come from somewhere other than the complete absence of junk results. This is what I meant by my first sentence.

I read that in the century after Newton, the French Academy offered a prize for evidence of the failure of Newton's laws. They gave out the prize dozens of times, yet Newtonian physics kept getting stronger and stronger. Eventually they stopped giving out the prize. Many of the contradictions apparently had to do with the lunar orbit, which was poorly understood.