Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you might have misunderstood? Academic physics publications do not have perfect reproduction rates. Especially theoretical physics. The criteria for a valid theory doesn’t prevent human mistakes. Everything you said applies to social sciences too. Per the scientific method any valid theory must be reproducible and predictive. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that the academic research and publication process…
Perhaps you can help shed some light on my apparent misunderstanding? See this other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21365183
I’ll give it a try. I can’t speak to the downvotes, but from my perspective you started talking about physics itself being repeatable. That is a separate topic from whether academic publications are repeatable. The thread’s context was the top comment suggesting the research linked at the very top is questionable because of it’s conclusion and it’s category (social science). My argument is that neither the conclusion nor the category can be used to assume the linked article is less than scientific, and that no sciences are designed to tell us why things are the way they are. When you add that physics itself is 100% repeatable, while true, it isn’t relevant to the topic nor does it help reflect on the article’s validity.