The basic claim made in published science is that something about the nature of the universe has been uncovered. That makes it distressing when other researchers attempting to isolate the same phenomenon are unable to do so:
- Majority of Landmark Cancer Studies Cannot Be Replicated (see also)
- Why Psychologists’ Food Fight Matters: “Important findings” haven’t been replicated, and science may have to change its ways
For social ‘scientists’ with aspirations of matching the rigour of their peers in the ‘pure’ or ‘natural’ sciences. If different groups of scientists using true double-blind controlled experiments can’t reach compatible conclusions about the world, what hope is there for people trying to deduce causality from historical data?