science (replication) crisis

I wanted to go on a little rant but probably I won't rant too much.
I clicked on a Molyneux video. What he had to say I did not much listen too but I found the article he talked about interesting. Title: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole.
Quite a fascinating story!

My issue is, I have the impression libertarians (and general public) have way too much trust in what is called science - meant by that are the enterprises and published results of the scientific community, not the scientific method(s).
People engaged in science are first and foremost people with their biases, weaknesses and constraints and only second scientists. Just because they have a degree they don't always start applicating thoroughness and falsification efforts and loose interest in prestige, a stable job, monetary reward and so on.
Also the structure of the scientific work/job, funding und publishing processes have quite many ramifications.
And lastly state involvement is huge. Bottlenecks via FDA and similar institutions or just the university system itself are also to consider.
Best results are probably to expect in fields where there is a) huge involvement from various industries of the economy b) laws of nature are directly involved.
Considering their attitude towards 'science' in economics, it seems to me quite surprising that libertarians are not more sceptical about other subjects as well.

As a German I find Adele und die Fledermaus by Danisch quite a read. (It is in German.) Click the headlines to the left for what sounds interesting to you, as it is a quite long compilation; decades got into it.

Also How to Reject any Scientific Manuscript by Dieter Gernert, TU München, 2008, p. 10 has quite some fascinating examples and adresses problems with peer review (and gatekeeping). As the saying goes: Einstein would never have been published would there have been peer review.
Sokal's hoax and Lynn Sagan I found the most impressive examples (and the one in the first link, the mentioned quillette article).
Buzzwords like pseudoscience or sexism, racism, discrimination and conspiracy theory (Bazant) for that matter, are also quite a deal.

In best case the state hinders and slows down scientific progress (and is "harmless" after the fact publication), in worst case the state proliferates false concepts, false models, false evidence.

The replication crisis has its own lengthy wiki article and seems to get more traction in the recent days. I agree with the subtitle this is a good thing.

I got to know it more from the psychological perspective but I am quite aware that more "hard" science like biology and medicine are involved as well.

Example of field critic: Months ago I heard JBP say Thomas Szasz is a classic. (Meant: A classic read and probably one of the most prolific psychiatry and psychology critics. "Myth of mental illness" and others.) A small modern version of him (though not libertarian to my knowledge) might be Daniel Mackler (10min or more unrelated to his field 18min).
Other example from theoretical physics would be the once already mentioned guys from MOND vs. SMOC. Name Pavel Kroupa I always keep in mind.
no dark matter, no dark ... is one claim.

Not too long ago it was spoken of Junk DNA and the German food pyramid had for decades grain/cereal at its most important part. If one wants to search, one could go on and on with examples.

My take is that, one should remember: Our knowledge is just our current state of error (be more sceptical, especially of the newest science). And lots of scientific progress gets hindered by long-established "experts" in a field (be more sceptical of the old but not too open to everything claimed revolutionary or new).

Also some "scientists" apparently love gulags

and I haven't even dabbled into scientism and "Big Think" nonsense.

Off with my "little" rant.