it seems that psychology papers extrapolate too much, and even "correcting for confounding factors" isn't enough, if the researchers don't know enough confounding factors, for one.

And i think that R and python being popular in the academic fields belies the fact that no one wants to talk to statisticians about their data. It's a lot easier to massage inputs to a machine than a human.

I was under the impression we were talking about reproducibility in this thread; therefore my point about policy being influenced by something you suggest is "meant for other academics"