You are downvoted, but I think you make an important point - just because results cant be replicated, doesnt mean its not science. As long as someone keeps investigating the results, showing that they dont work and why, its still science - we learn from mistakes (which is the essence of the scientific method). It stops being science when we just accept any results that are being published and turn them into dogma.
> because you don't have the lab or tools available.
I agree, that's trivial. What's not so trivial: Where does the "experiment" start and where do the "conditions" end?
In theory the scientific method is easy, in practice (i.e. state of the art research) you are studying highly complicated phenomena, that are, per definition, not well understood. Often you don't know the mechanism of action, let alone the factors that influence it. I don't blame you - if you haven't done scientific research, it is very difficult to appreciate.
So again, from the failure to replicate a result it does not follow that the result is wrong, or that "it's not science". That's a misunderstanding of the replication crisis.
You're right, I'm not a scientist. I'll give it to you that researching in a scientific way is science, but if it's not reproducible then what you publish shouldn't be established as "truth" but as a hypothesis that needs further research.
What bothers me is that some people are very dogmatic about things that are published and most of the time those people aren't scientists either.
Let me re-iterate my point, because I see a number of commentators here making this logical mistake. When scientist A shows a result, and scientist B can't reproduce it, it does not mean the result is wrong.
Of course the result could be wrong, and, assuming scientist B knows what they are doing, it's an indication that the result is indeed wrong. But it could also be true.
This is not a comment on the state of science and whether incentives are set correctly at the moment (they aren't).
> When scientist A shows a result, and scientist B can't reproduce it, it does not mean the result is wrong
Correct, but until scientist A’s result can be reproduced by someone, anyone, relying on scientist A’s result is really more akin to a religious leap of faith, then science. When any belief based on faith alone is presented as an unquestionable truth, it deserves skepticism.
Let me throw a tiny wrench into your logical reasoning: I can't reproduce most results, does it mean most results are not science?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You should not expect scientific experiments to be replicated every time.