By “do your own research”, do you mean “repeat a statistically significant number of the various studies to find out how repeatable the results are”, or do you mean “read a book which convinced me”?

There's a third option - "do a meta-analysis of representative studies to determine true effect size".

I counted that as “repeat”, given that’s part of how this problem was first discovered.

On reflection though, that only works when you know roughly how many negative results get published: part of the problem with unreproducable results is that negatives have been difficult to publish, biasing publications so that entirely competent and honest mistakes are much more common than one would expect from just the p-value.

I have done some research, and it sounded like you're overstating or making false claims, so I'll called you on it. "Do your own research" is just another easy way to dismiss criticism. I can't prove that no researcher has ever been banned on ideological grounds. You made the claim that this is the norm, I don't think it is, so I simply asked for a reference.

Thanks for providing the above citations though.

I've indexed the statements I have a problem with, because you seemed to have missed the last and most egregious one.

1. Even in many "scientific" fields, standards are so low that most published research is wrong.

This claim seems to be supported by evidence. I think it's important to add that while we should encourage higher standards and alternatives to p-values, replication is a critical part of the scientific process. Biases will inevitably creep into study design and analysis. This implies that even with extremely high standards, a significant portion of studies (hopefully not the majority) will still fail replication, because it was conducted by humans.

Psychology studies are notorious for this. I don't think they represent the majority though. I could point to particle physics that have a convention of five-sigma (99.99994% confidence). Let's not resort to cherry-picking.

2. And in much of academia, evidence is less important than ideology

3. research and researchers are banned not because they are wrong, but because their ideas are unacceptable.

I didn't see any citations backing these claims.

In your added citations you point to a correlation between conservatism and academia. Implying that the difference is because conservatives are forced out of academia is jumping the gun. I have an alternatives theory: people that think science is important don't want to associate themselves with group that are considered anti-scientific (public perception is key here).

There is no place for _any_ ideology in science anyway.

> In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf

This is flawed, they did give participants the option to abstain from picking a side. "Moderate" is also a position.

Many of these references focus on social sciences. Do you that is representative of all the sciences?