Sure, and scientists need a place to have such conversations.

But publication is not a closed system. The "published, peer-reviewed paper" is frequently an artifact used to decide practical policy matters in many institutions both public and private. To the extent that Science (as an institution in its own right) wants to influence policy, that influence needs to be grounded in reproducible results.

Also, I would not be surprised if stronger emphasis on reproducibility improved the quality of conversation among scientists.