Psychology's replication crisis is typically conceptualized as the insight that the published literature contains a worrying amount of unreplicable, false-positive findings. At the same time, meta-scientific attempts to assess the crisis in more detail have reported substantial difficulties in identifying unambiguous definitions of the scientific claims in published articles and determining how they are connected to the presented evidence. I argue that most claims in the literature are so critically underspecified that attempts to empirically evaluate them are doomed to failure—they are not even wrong. Meta-scientists should beware of the flawed assumption that the psychological literature is a collection of well-defined claims. To move beyond the crisis, psychologists must reconsider and rebuild the conceptual basis of their hypotheses before trying to test them.

中文翻译：

---

为什么大多数心理学研究结果都没有错

心理学的复制危机通常被概念化为已发表的文献包含大量令人担忧的不可复制的假阳性结果。与此同时，更详细地评估危机的元科学尝试报告说，在确定已发表文章中科学主张的明确定义以及确定它们如何与所提供的证据联系起来方面存在很大困难。我认为，文献中的大多数主张都被严重低估，以至于试图从经验上评估它们注定要失败——它们甚至没有错. 元科学家应该提防有缺陷的假设，即心理学文献是定义明确的主张的集合。为了摆脱危机，心理学家必须重新考虑并重建他们假设的概念基础，然后再尝试测试它们。