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.
But if you can't reproduce with the exact same conditions than the original experiment then it's not science.
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.
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.
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).
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.