[biophysboy]

I know what you are saying, but I'm arguing that science is great because it produces better output than the people that make it as long as they stick to good methods.

As for reproducibility, its my opinion that it has more to do with incentives and constraints than the ethics or intellectual capacity of the researcher (although those are real components too)

[reliabilityguy]

> I'm arguing that science is great because it produces better output than the people that make it as long as they stick to good methods.

I don’t think we have a contradiction here. What I am saying is that science is made by people, and we as scientists have to be extremely vigilant today not to let “ends justify the means” crowd to use the name of science for their own agenda.

[biophysboy]

Yeah I might be nitpicking. I agree with you. I get frustrated when people conflate a neutral scientific method with a neutral scientist: that a scientist cannot explore political/ideological topics with robust methods because its biased. Do you see the sleight of hand I'm talking about? I've noticed it a lot in the reproducibility discourse.