Love the post and I’m with you for the most part. The so-called “crisis” is really nothing more than science being science. Iteration upon iteration of wrong, wrong, wrong, mostly wrong, partly wrong, half right, mostly right, essentially correct over and over again. That said I think there is a nugget of truth to the complaint on reproducibility. Where I have the largest complaint is not with the major findings in the top journals but rather the smaller methodologically focused articles often published in the mid to lower tier journals. Often times I have looked to repeat a method or even a part of a method and found it simply could not be repeated reliably or worse yet, a key piece of information needed to successfully use the method was omitted from the paper itself. The reasons for these omissions are usually totally unclear to me. I have theorized that the authors, having become so accustomed to said methods, don’t realize other newcomers need additional detail that perhaps they no longer do. That is just a guess however and it could be plain sloppy writing or laziness. I don’t necessarily blame the journal editors or reviewers as it would be well very difficult to catch most of these issues without actually getting on the bench but a little more attention to detail and proofing of the materials and methods sections of all research papers would be nice.