Do quantitative psycologists generally agree on description of evidence state?
Do quantative scientists generally agree on description of evidence state?
I consulted a PhD researcher about the evidence for a phenomenon in a young research area (\~5 years of literature). The doctor in question had a ph.s in experimental psycology with a speciality on psychometrics. The subject waa the (possible) egfect of a fisease on the brain. His take: very limited supporting evidence, with the largest study (\~100,000 participants) finding no effect. He flagged methodological caveats about it (instrument validity, administration format) but called it the strongest evidence available and concluded the evidence base doesn't currently support the phenomenon.
My question is meta-epistemological, not about the topic: when a field is young and evidence is thin, how much do rigorous researchers converge on describing the evidence versus diverge on interpreting it? Would most agree on the descriptive claim ("limited evidence, largest study negative"), or does the disagreement live in the description itself rather than the conclusions drawn from it? And would a second opinion likely change the descriptive picture, or just the framing? Would any credible psychologists realistically deviate from a description with a similar conclusion on strength of evidence currently?
Basically: do I need an independent second assessment, or would expert disagreement here be predictable in form?