Because experiments can be undermined by a vast number of practical mistakes, the likeliest explanation for any failed replication will always be that the replicator bungled something along the way.

This is a very real issue and I think that if we want to solve the current issues with science we need to be honest about this, rather than close our eyes and repeat the mantra that replication will solve everything.

Why is it more likely that the followup experiment was flawed, rather than the original? Are we giving a prior of > 50% to every hypothesis that a social scientist comes up with?