> Replicability isn't enough to be scientific. Many studies have invalid methodologies, so replicating them by following the same method just propagates wrongness and makes the problems worse. And if you don't follow the same method the original authors will claim it's not a replication study.

Replicability test also happens in the real world. If gravity is not actually 9.81 m/s^2 then we will eventually have to come to term to that. For all we know, we could be completely wrong about quantum mechanics and the reality of subatomic particles, but it doesn't matter because we can use the predicted behavior and it actually works.

The question is to ask: what is one thing that I would never discard from a scientific principle. If you remove replicability, it does not matter if you have accurately captured a measurement of the universe once, it is completely pointless if you are not able to replicate it again.

>My proposal is: let science be done by those who need its results to be correct.

A tangential proposal - individuals (not orgs) should offer to upfront fund ( in lump sum) promising researchers for life. That way a researcher is not worried about losing his livelihood. I suspect this may already be happening in a few circles without much fanfare.

Why are individuals better that individuals acting together as an organisation better?

If that’s your criteria, then shouldn’t said funding go to an individual scientist who has no lab, no staff, no PhD candidates, and no access to the internet or existing research.

Because organisations are bad and only individuals are capable of making Correct Decisions.

>Why are individuals better that individuals acting together as an organisation better?

Most organizations are made of of very mediocre (or political) individuals, and when it comes to wrong (or political) decisions individuals cannot be held responsible, that how orgs deflect responsibility.

On the hand when an individual (often wealthy) or a bunch of them decide to fund something (often from his own pocket), they know what they are doing and are personally willing to bear the risk.

>Because organisations are bad and only individuals are capable of making Correct Decisions.

I should have been more nuanced.

Org = generally public orgs where the people in the org do not have a stake beyond their jobs in the org. Example: govt. As an exception to this rule there can be (private) orgs of very competent people who deploy they own money to get things done, including research.

(p.s - I realize that I cannot delve into all all nuances with a few sentences I put here, but hopefully you get the drift)