What is the rate of failure for "harder" sciences, does anyone know?
In saying that I think there will be a self correcting mechanism in more physically based science. If something can be replicated it can be built upon and new discoveries made. If something can't be replicated it will end up being forgotten about.
Also I do think that science needs a way of reporting failed studies and failed replication. At the moment all the glory and funding go to studies that produce positive results. Producing a failed result is still valid science and should be doccumented.
In all my time in academia, in my discipline (cross between engineering and physics), I never heard anyone try to replicate a study. No advisor would allow students to "waste" time on it.
They were also pretty open in vocalizing that they didn't believe the result in paper X in journal Y. They knew the problem existed.
In saying that I think there will be a self correcting mechanism in more physically based science. If something can be replicated it can be built upon and new discoveries made. If something can't be replicated it will end up being forgotten about.
Also I do think that science needs a way of reporting failed studies and failed replication. At the moment all the glory and funding go to studies that produce positive results. Producing a failed result is still valid science and should be doccumented.