[evancoop]

The subtitle of this article should read, "when science is performed irresponsibly, pseudoscience is treated like science."

Academia has a reproducibility crisis. Forensics has endured its own struggle with credibility. The media is undergoing similar scrutiny. When that which is expected to be trustworthy is proved unreliable, then how does society distinguish between that which is unreliable in design (e.g. dowsing) and that which is unreliable in execution (e.g. academic publications)?

[AlexandrB]

> Academia has a reproducibility crisis.

Isn't that largely isolated to psychology and related "soft" sciences? I have not heard of a physics or chemistry reproducibility crisis. Not to mention that dowsing violates basic physics/chemistry that predate any "reproducibility crisis".

You may be right though that people trust science less. This is really funny considering how much science (that has to work) underpins something like an iPhone.

[deadbeeves]

Yes, the reproducibility crisis affects just about all disciplines. When researchers are pressured to aim for impact and citations in their publications that doesn't leave room to reproduce other people's results. So as you say in the soft sciences we have that results are failing to reproduce, but in the hard sciences we have results that we don't know if they would reproduce or not, because no one has attempted it.