Joe has never replied to one of my emails.

journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/st... (source)

Happy to have a chat with you over email or Zoom, but I don't think you're correct here (I study Daubert and other reliability standards). Generally, I think you are mixing up admissibility and proof. And you might be surprised that courts haven't been very interested in the 'crisis' narrative:

I guess because he doesn't know. I don't know either, but my prior is that they are mostly very solid.

Why do you have to assume the worst of people you disagree with? I'm biased as well, but unless I'm completely disengaged from reality, there seems to be a very plausible interpretation of his statement in which he's just trying to be epistemically modest about what he knows about those fields.

Yes! I wrote about this here. rdo-olr.org/improving-ex...

there were not many, but there were some others, as well as random calls from charities. I can't remember the names, but could look it up. One operated out of George Mason Uni.

Again, on my read, I've had exactly the same experience at multiple private funders.

Yes, I've had the same thing happen to me. Sometimes no response, sometimes an e-mail as you describe, sometimes something very hopeful asking for more information and then no response when I send it. The public funders are at least more accountable, but still lots of wasted time. Agreed - it's bad.

I hope readers of Science will find the open peer review on MetaROR!