As a scientist, I think this is probably correct. In my experience, a great majority of publications draw improper statistical conclusions, and I believe many of these are wrong in substance.
"What if the broad strokes are right but the statistics are sloppy?"
Publishing statements as statements of truth when they are improperly or falsely backed up would be better described as politics than science.
I take the view that "a majority of science publications are wrong" is a purposefully misleading and sensationalistic take, even though it may be technically true. IMO, only the leading-edge of known science should factor into such studies, and I think that is probably not "mostly wrong". After all, even if there has only been 1 rock-solid publication in favor of a round Earth that is preceded by 99 publications in support of a flat-Earth, I would't call that field 99% wrong.
As a scientist, I think this is probably correct. In my experience, a great majority of publications draw improper statistical conclusions, and I believe many of these are wrong in substance.
"What if the broad strokes are right but the statistics are sloppy?"
Publishing statements as statements of truth when they are improperly or falsely backed up would be better described as politics than science.