They posted the replication crisis and said that its an “art” to know which science is grounded in evidence and which is not.

You’re right, its not solved. It’s not really a problem than can exactly be fully solved and definitely not within the current structure of the journal system and the publish or perish of academia like you mentioned.

Your other post however is the nuance completely missing from what OP said which is that we do already have ways of rooting out consensus and empirical support through the hierarchy of evidence.

I pretty much agree with you, what I was annoyed about is the vague dismissal of what has been done to improve science. It’s not an art to know what is good scientific work, it’s still a science and evidence based policy and action is needed now more than ever.