What makes you think there are tweaks that would improve "this"? You might be startled to learn "this" (the scientific method) is the best possible way of discovery that humans know of.

You may be even more startled to learn the scientific method is clear as an abstract concept, you know, those circle diagrams with "observation -> research -> hypothesis -> experiment -> analysis -> conclusions", but the details are always in flux and vary between countries, universities, publications and in time.

And the details are absolutely crucial for the end result. You come in here acting like a religious defender of the scientific method against the evil of rejecting science, but I'm not that guy. I'm not rejecting science, I'm just pointing out the obvious: modern science is producing literally noise, as seen in this chart, because of misaligned incentives and a broken peer review process, among others.

Do you even know what the "replication crisis" is? Hints of it in this very chart. And if you do, it's completely disingenuous to come attacking me for even mentioning we have a problem. And if you don't, you're not informed well enough to speak about the scientific method.

The "scientific method" should be applied to the "scientific method". Meaning when you see evidence that falsifies it, seek the causes and correct them, don't dig in your heels and go religious.

Everyone knows about the replication crisis, and everyone knows the flaws in the incentive structures around publishing research, but none of that is what you referenced.

What we need are people with level heads making calm decisions, not bombastic polemics demanding the system get blown up.

What did I reference? It was a very short message, so probably you saw what you wanted to see, or what you could see. But all I said is that a lot of modern studies are noise like that, and it's actively harmful, and the process which produces these studies should be modified.

Modern researchers have insane incentives to churn out papers based on superficial or questionable data, without isolating variables. The result is predictably noise. Or even worse, noise shaped by cultural bias and prejudice, which has been a long term problem with the scientific method, because in the end, we can talk about facts and evidence and data, but the judge jury and executioner on what is a fact, evidence and data are people, and people are always subjective by definition. The best we can hope is to all be subjective in the same way, hoping our shared subjectivity is more objective taken together. That doesn't always hold up.

None of these studies are produced via the scientific method. They are looking at statistical correlation and plucking them out of thousands of complex, confounding, dynamic variables in a very chaotic environment.

What about the chart leads you to that conclusion?