I take issue with grouping non-reproducible (in principle), non-prediction-generating (just &quot;rejects&quot; a null hypothesis without specifying a precise research hypothesis) type of research as science. If anyone has missed Feynman&#x27;s discussion of cargo cult science, check that out because it describes what is going on pretty well: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;calteches.library.caltech.edu&#x2F;51&#x2F;2&#x2F;CargoCult.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;calteches.library.caltech.edu&#x2F;51&#x2F;2&#x2F;CargoCult.htm</a><p>It is really something very different from the method that gave us the benefits we see all around today. For example, the cancer reproducibility project had to drop 1&#x2F;4 of the studies before even trying because it was so difficult to get the required protocols and materials: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10687879" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10687879</a><p>&quot;Research&quot;, ok. But &quot;Science&quot;? I would prefer reserving that word for something better. Something better than a group of people publishing reports lacking 2 weeks worth of full time work worth of necessary methodological information.