> There is no such crisis in experimental physics.
Then why do I keep hearing about superconductors on here?
This sort of thinking comes from ignorance and arrogance. When you do research at the frontier of any subject, you won't compete with the average university graduate in that subject, you'll compete with people with the highest "intellect" who also studied this subject for their entire lives, and you're incredibly unlikely to find a breakthrough without doing that too. The amount of Nobel Prize winners who went on to support compete bogus theories in other fields is endless.
> There is no such crisis in experimental physics.
... also seems to completely miss that there is a spectrum from "hard" science to "soft" science (contrary to what many might expect, "soft" sciences are arguably much more difficult to work with), and that physics is the "hardest" (ie.: in many ways "most straightforward", although by this I do not mean to trivialize it at all) natural science there is.
You need much more sophisticated statistical techniques & experimental design when you're dealing with complex systems (eg.: society, ecology, psychology, etc) than when you are dealing with simple systems (cue the joke about physicists assuming spherical cows).
Then why do I keep hearing about superconductors on here?
This sort of thinking comes from ignorance and arrogance. When you do research at the frontier of any subject, you won't compete with the average university graduate in that subject, you'll compete with people with the highest "intellect" who also studied this subject for their entire lives, and you're incredibly unlikely to find a breakthrough without doing that too. The amount of Nobel Prize winners who went on to support compete bogus theories in other fields is endless.