The field of psychology had a big crisis in the 2010s, when many widely accepted results turned out to be much less solid than previously thought. It’s called the replication crisis, because labs around the world tried and failed to replicate, in new experiments, previous results published by their original “discoverers”. In other words, many reported psychological effects were either non-existent—artifacts of the experimenter’s flawed setup—or so much weaker than originally claimed that they lost most of their intellectual sparkle.
(The crisis spanned other fields as well, but I mostly care about psychology here, especially the cognitive kind.)
This is very old news, and I’ve been vaguely aware of several of the biggest disgraced results for years, but I keep on forgetting which are (still probably) real and which aren’t. This is not good. Most results in the field do actually replicate and are robust [maybe], so it would be a pity to lose confidence in the whole field just because of a few bad apples.