It’s hard to be accurate within an amount of text that most people will find digestible, at least for me. Replicating positive results is a good thing and I wouldn’t consider that redundant. But if it’s something like “We’ve poured chicken broth on dryer lint and it didn’t produce gold”, we only need a couple studies (again, as long as the data and methods used were solid) before more start becoming redundant.

If we do something and nothing happens, it’s good to try a couple times and be sure that technique doesn’t do anything. More than that is redundant. If we try something and it does work, then I’ll welcome far more trials confirming it does work before I start tossing around the word “redundant”, especially if those trials are by other people in other places.

Semantics get annoying, as well. But I see what you’re saying.

Seriously, of that the fields that needed to learn that lesson the one that needs it the most is Psychology.