[couchand]

If you're reasonably intelligent, you can come up with reasons not to believe anything. It's easy to discredit things. It's hard to build things.

This comment is remarkably troubling to me. There is intrinsic value in replication studies. Showing that an effect does not exist or is far weaker than (or, alternatively, exists and is just as strong as) initially reported is just as much "building" our understanding of scientific truth.

No, scratch that, it is far more important than the original study. The original is more like a sketch, and as the results are confirmed or disconfirmed over the course of many subsequent studies the solid building takes its true form.

These discussions about replication always sadden me, because far too many researchers miss the point of the scientific method.

[tedks]

...you're responding to a point I didn't make. That comment is about the fallacy of psychology "testing everything on undergrads."

Please read what you respond to.

[couchand]

I apologize if I misrepresented your point. I went back and re-read your comment again, and I guess I'm still confused. It looks like you pivot in the middle of your comment with the statement: These discussions about replication always sadden me...

What did you mean by you can come up with reasons not to believe anything regarding testing on undergrads? That sounds to me like a broader complaint about replication generally.

How is it that discussions about replication "miss the point"? I thought the point was that replication is fundamental to science, so it seems like these discussions are usually spot on.