I'm on board with the assessment that a sloppy reproduction of the original experiment is unable to comment on the validity of the original experiment.

I'm under the impression that, even in cases where the initial researcher was involved in the reproduction, the results were not stellar. There have been a slew of failures to reproduce, even when the procedures of the original experiment were followed to a T.

Unless I misunderstood you. If your argument is that psychology deals with people, who can be roughly described as chaotic systems, and therefore reproducibility is not as fundamental to the field... then I'd say that's a step away from scientific rigor. It doesn't mean it's not science, but it certainly means it's using a permutation of scientific method.

***
In science, stating things explicitly is the bees knees.
That's why I give all my presentations wearing only a thong.