I have added a postscript to my post from last month, “What If Most of the Findings Published in Psychology (and Medicine and Biology and…) Journals Are False?” The postscript describes some promising new developments in the battle against replication failure.
FYI. Just saw it, haven’t read it, but it’s obviously relevant.
No, I hadn’t. The people who are raising questions about replicability are attacking strong vested interests—really, the credibility of the whole science of psychology is at stake—so there was bound to be reaction. Sorry to see such heavy hitters as Timothy Wilson and Daniel Gilbert among the deniers. I don’t think they’re going to get very far just picking nits in Nosek et al.’s study. As one of the people quoted in your link notes, there are many lines of evidence now that all point in the same direction.
The only solution is to start taking the task of replication seriously, just like real grown-up scientists. As I noted in my Postscript, Perspectives has now published two “Registered Replication Reports.” One was only partially successful, the other failed. So count another point for Nosek and against Wilson and Gilbert. The good news is that if replication begins to be taken seriously—and I think that’s the direction things are going—then before too long we will start having results we can believe in.