You--or Science--are not distinguishing between small experiments and large-scale studies. I asked a psychologist friend about your claim the first time you raised this on Disqus and this was her explanation. I still have her correspondence: 

"It is true that there's an ongoing movement to try to replicate a lot of studies published in the past. They are primarily the kind where you hold an ice cube in your hand and then you read the word "cold" at a lower illumination than the word "hot" (or that kind of thing). The usual problem with these things is that they are 'underpowered,' with too small a number of participants, so a statistical outcome can be not at all what it would be with more people in it. But this is a different matter than reports about evidence-based treatments, where there are very strict requirements about design, number of participants, and independent replications. Those are not usually irreplicable."