I think describing it as 'fake' is rather antagonistic. You could just as easily say 'poor quality' or 'unjustified'. I would say that more accurately describes the situation.
It could be...
- unjustified and sloppy (not 'fake', but also not considered reliable evidence)
- unjustified and malicious (this i would consider 'fake')
- unjustified and gamed (again, 'fake')
- ...or just unjustified and under-specified (and would result in 'true' results if the conditions for replication were better studied and defined)
Lots of people like to think themselves smart for following 'first principles'...and then often end up falling in the same ditches. First principles + received wisdom is a bit of a contradiction... if it's 'wisdom' rather than evidence, you are skipping your principles to go with the received starting point...
It could be...
Lots of people like to think themselves smart for following 'first principles'...and then often end up falling in the same ditches. First principles + received wisdom is a bit of a contradiction... if it's 'wisdom' rather than evidence, you are skipping your principles to go with the received starting point...