The limits of replicability

TLDR

The replicability crisis debate is driven by the claim that all science should be replicable, yet evidence shows most science is not, and a new localist perspective challenges this by arguing that replicability problems are not universal and should not be treated as a universal standard. This article introduces the localist perspective on replicability, examines its implications, and addresses the challenge of demarcating which disciplines require replicability.

Abstract

Abstract Discussions about a replicability crisis in science have been driven by the normative claim that all of science should be replicable and the empirical claim that most of it isn’t. Recently, such crisis talk has been challenged by a new localism, which argues a) that serious problems with replicability are not a general occurrence in science and b) that replicability itself should not be treated as a universal standard. The goal of this article is to introduce this emerging strand of the debate and to discuss some of its implications and limitations. I will in particular highlight the issue of demarcation that localist accounts have to address, i.e. the question of how we can distinguish replicable science from disciplines where replicability does not apply.