>Empirical results and by extension replications are one line of argument in scientific discourse, but by no means the only one.
Someone said science relies on reproducibility and you outright dismissed that with a "no, no...", now it sounds like you're saying "well, yes but it's nuanced".
If you just said "yes, but it's nuanced" from the start without being so dismissive you probably wouldn't have been met with disagreement.
The full quote in question: "Science, since time immemorial, has relied on the systemic replication of any presented result or finding."
This is wrong, plain and simple. It paints a picture of necessary and sufficient conditions for scientific progress which are incorrect.
- The vast majority of "results and findings" is not looked at anybody other than the researchers directly involved. If you have 5 people on a paper, be sure at at best 3 of them have seen actual data, or were even involved in the experiment.
- Where is the systemic replication, exactly? Replication rates vary considerably across fields. And, of course, only selected results are replicated.
- If there was a systemic replication of "any result and finding", how is it possible that there is a replication crisis at all? Should the bad apples not have been found long ago?
If science would, in fact, rely on such a system, doing replications would be a normal part of everyday scientific work. It is not, not by a long shot.
So you can conclude that either science is not happening at all (not sure when it did though), or that the quoted premise is incorrect.
Someone said science relies on reproducibility and you outright dismissed that with a "no, no...", now it sounds like you're saying "well, yes but it's nuanced".
If you just said "yes, but it's nuanced" from the start without being so dismissive you probably wouldn't have been met with disagreement.