Crisis in Psychology?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'm not well versed enough in psychological science's methodology to say for sure, but it's my impression that the results are calculated within a disclosed margin of error. Others' results (though they may differ) can fall within this margin and still be considered a replication. That the conclusions set broad parameters to begin with, and are STILL seen to be non-replicable is the issue.

I found a short introductory video on what I'm describing. 

In either case I would organize the issue of replication into three questions. And I'd be interested in knowing your answer to these questions. (Personally, the more I think about the questions the more I see replication as problematic and of limited scientific value—which I know goes contrary to our inherited scientific beliefs.)

1. What counts as replication?
2. What function does replication have and how?
3. What should we conclude when replication fails or succeeds?