What percentage of papers in your average, reputable journal have been replicated?
And how can one easily determine, while looking at a particular paper, whether it has been replicated? And whether those doing the replication have any undisclosed ties to the original?
At an epistemological level, the idea of a knowledge source like a journal where the information is only deemed reliable if personally verified seems problematic. Why even have it if all of its uncountable claims are indistinguishable from very clever lies, and attempts to quantify the extent of those lies indicate that they are pervasive?
And how can one easily determine, while looking at a particular paper, whether it has been replicated? And whether those doing the replication have any undisclosed ties to the original?
At an epistemological level, the idea of a knowledge source like a journal where the information is only deemed reliable if personally verified seems problematic. Why even have it if all of its uncountable claims are indistinguishable from very clever lies, and attempts to quantify the extent of those lies indicate that they are pervasive?