if a study can't be replicated then the study is wrong isn't it?
either the sample was too small, they got unlucky or the result is stated too generally.
either the sample was too small, they got unlucky or the result is stated too generally.
Not necessarily. Maybe the replications were flawed. Characteristics of a population can change over time. Blah, blah, blah. It's incredibly hard to say something is flat wrong or absolutely correct. A good scientist uses what others might call "weasel" words (I hate that term), like, "The data is (in)consistent with the hypothesis."
The more evidence that mounts for or against a hypothesis, well, it's up to you to decide how to act.