[old scientist, pointing at some data] After decades of research, thousands of experiments, a massive amount of peer reviewing, we can finally confidently conclude...
[smug dude with a ridiculous hairstyle] Uh yeah, but this TikTok by PatriotEagle1776 says your research is wrong
Thousands of experiments? Many experiments can't even be reproduced once.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
The art is knowing which science is built on thousands of experiments and which isn't.
You are correct about the replication problems, but this also varies heavily depending what scientific discipline you look at.
Also if you do science you may take the results oft another scientist (if they make sense and are peer revievewed) and build your next experiment on it, which may also work out and get peer reviewed.
So even with the replication problem science can work and build on thousands of experiments. But it would be better and needed that the experiments were reproducible.
Also let's acknowledge that just posting the Wikipedia of the replication crisis and saying that makes scientific theory development invalid is total bullshit.
First that this issue was brought up ~20 years go. Second that the advancement of meta science has remedied these issues a lot. Third that we are now far more open about science with organizations like OSF. Fourth that in the example of the comic these are usually arguments against highly replicated works like climate science not small niche areas of psychology the public doesn't interact with.
Is that what they wrote, though? I challenge you to read more closely.
This is not a resolved problem. Blind Spots covers many recent & developing failures in medical science. The drive to "publish [novel findings] or perish" continues to be a problem in current research.
They posted the replication crisis and said that its an "art" to know which science is grounded in evidence and which is not.
You're right, its not solved. It's not really a problem than can exactly be fully solved and definitely not within the current structure of the journal system and the publish or perish of academia like you mentioned.
Your other post however is the nuance completely missing from what OP said which is that we do already have ways of rooting out consensus and empirical support through the hierarchy of evidence.
I pretty much agree with you, what I was annoyed about is the vague dismissal of what has been done to improve science. It's not an art to know what is good scientific work, it's still a science and evidence based policy and action is needed now more than ever.
That's a justification for hierarchies of evidence that place meta-analyses & systematic reviews near the top.