[atoav]

I think it is important not to extrapolate from a replication crisis in one field (e.g. psychology) to all the other sciences, because the picture painted by this (to my knowledge) doesn't accurately describe the underlying practises.

[btilly]

No, it is exactly the opposite.

The well-documented failings of psychology should cause us to take a closer look at other fields to see if they have similar problems. If they don't, then great. If they do, then fix them.

For example people studying metascience have found that a lot of medical research is of questionable accuracy. It is not as bad as psychology. But it is bad and I'm glad that people are taking this problem seriously.

[atoav]

Good point. We should be careful in other fields as well.

I came at it from another direction here — there are people who are like: "Look at the replication crisis in psychology — this is proof science cannot be trusted in general". So what I meant to argue here is that this conclusion cannot be drawn automatically, not that we shouldn't scrutinize other fields (we should!)

[hrhdkdlfnrne]

In medical sciences is worse. In one attempt to replicate "lamdmark" cancer studies 89% failed to replicate.

https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a