This whole discussion you see above is part of the process of repeating a study. You can’t just do exactly what the previous study did and expect all the flaws to magically disappear. You need to first uncover the flaws, and more eyes and collaboration means a higher likelihood that the flaws get found, hence the importance of these discussions. Then you redesign the experiment to fix those flaws, and then you can run it again.
Critique and analysis of a study or experiment is the default. It isn’t a religion; science thrives on repeat analysis.
Which is why someone should repeat the study to confirm or contradict it.
This whole discussion you see above is part of the process of repeating a study. You can’t just do exactly what the previous study did and expect all the flaws to magically disappear. You need to first uncover the flaws, and more eyes and collaboration means a higher likelihood that the flaws get found, hence the importance of these discussions. Then you redesign the experiment to fix those flaws, and then you can run it again.
I agree with you.