>>1672972>If a study can't be replicated then it isn't science.
Wrong. It is still science.
Science is really the record of disproven hypotheses, not of new discoveries per se. The "crisis" is really only that there are thousands of universities, and replication is not often possible. There is a small but growing movement for an autonomous body to grade new studies/published results according to how rigorous they are, from A-F or whatever. So interesting results, but cross section of participants was slim and you only had 30, ehhhhh, better grade it a C.
Further, the social sciences are always by their nature prone to some ideological/interpretation bias, because what the "true" model of society, or of the human mind, etc. is not agreed upon by everyone, nor firmly "proven" this way or that. There are many branches of psychology for example, some more rooted in firm numbers and less spooky voodoo than others. But even neuroscience can't tell you everything about the human mind, and eventually you have to draw on a chosen philosophical basis to make explanations. And to risk getting a little PoMo here, this sort of thing will probably never will be agreed upon 100% (short of global totalitarian bloodbath?). Classical Marxists vs. SJWs vs. materialists vs. various religious views (classic Judeo-Christian worldview) vs. the next big thing. Just the way it is.
In short, it doesn't mean that social sciences are not science. Just that they are a little messier and slippery. Even the natural "hard" sciences can get this way in some fields.