Crisis in Psychology?

[John 6IX Breezy]

 I prefer those psychological studies that are replicable. 

One more thing. I'm speaking from ignorance here since my knowledge of p-hacking is limited. But the argument I want to add is that replication comes at a cost—the more you run an experiment the more likely you are to find a false positive or false negative. Statistical tests are built on probabilities, so replication is like rolling a die: The more times you roll it, the more likely you are to land on your desired results. And I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference between a researcher running his own experiment multiple times (p-hacking) and other researchers running your experiment multiple times (replication). Again, I think Bayesian methods can help correct for this because it treats every experiment as informative. But I don't think psychology is currently treating replicability this way. In fact, I think these questions truly belong to the philosophy of science.