What about replication studies? I’ve been skeptical about replication studies for a long time, on the general principle that if the original study is too noisy to work, the replication is likely to have similar problems. That said, I do see value in replication studies—not so much as a strategy for scientific learning but as a motivator for researchers. Or, maybe I should say, as a disincentive for sloppy studies. Again, consider power pose: That work was flawed in a zillion ways, some of which are clear from reading the published article and others of which were explained later in a widely-circulated recantation written by the first author on that paper. But it’s hard for a lot of people to take seriously the claims of outsiders that a research project is flawed. Non-replication is a convincer. Again, not a convincer that the effect is zero, but a convincer that the original study is too noisy to be useful.