The actions that authorities take to maintain and to regain their authority is always interesting.
When the “replication crisis” uncovered the wide-spread existence of studies that could not be replicated [Replication is the peer-review basis of validation for studies and study results] – it was a serious blow to the mantle of authoritative power that psychology and social science studies have enrobed their results in – and to the politicians and special interests that manipulate that power. How can this authority be regained?
First: control the situation – “deliberate misrepresentation and fraud are rare.” Second: control the public perception – “there is a ‘naturally occurring’ variation due to sampling size and content; that can produce widely differing study results.” Third: spin-doctor the mix – the “replication crisis” is not a scandal; it’s a good thing — it enhances our knowledge by showing that you need to take study results with “a grain of salt.”
Results of studies can “widely differ” – but at the same time: any one of those results can be selected and cited by politicians and special interests as authoritative.
And if you think they’ll tell you to “take them with a grain of salt” — you’re the sort of buyer they’re looking to sell to.