I'd honestly say if the study isn't worth replicating then don't fund it to begin with. Its like funding it enough to get some animals or cells into your lab but then not enough for gloves and pipets and computers.
That sounds great in abstract but every study is subject to that logic, including studies studying studies. Which means that every study should be matched by an infinite regression of studies, which is untenable to put it mildly and mathematically fucking ridiculous to put it conservatively.
how do you know that those two groups aren't collaborating for the same result? Or biased in the same direction of the result?
you don't. You either add a 3rd party (4th... 5th...6th... Xth)or accept the conclusion. If you add a third party how do you know they are trust worthy: infinite regression.
Its not about perfection, its about taking the simple, common sense, and time-tested precautions that gave us the technological marvels we enjoy today.
But of course the more independent, even adversarial, the two groups are the better. Like in this story it mentions the "critics" of this project claim other labs (their friends?) have already replicated these studies, apparently using the super secret protocol they couldn't explain to this group.
I'd compare it to using sms 2FA. Is it perfect, no. But it is far, far better than no 2FA at all. And there's nothing stopping you from putting your banking app on the same phone you use for 2FA.
