Tbh I don’t disagree with quite a few of your points. A lot of papers out there atm are pretty poor quality. But having more similar papers won’t help matters. Wait for the high quality papers that will come from more valid high quality data and models that haven’t been rushed out. As for physicist have higher rigour, I’m sorry but that’s just arrogance. There are good scientists and bad scientists, and whether they studied physics or epidiemoology isn’t the point. Stop assuming that just because people studied a subject you like and are familiar with that they are better than the other group.
I agree with you on one level - the difference in rigour I perceive is a function of surrounding culture in a field, not the specific people who are in it. On the other hand if you look at the confidence levels required to publish something as a discovery, they're much higher in physics, partly that's fundamental to the field and partly it's that in physics scientists are OK with statements like "to make the next discovery we must spend 10 years building a billion dollar machine that will require international cooperation on a scale never seen before". Whereas in most other fields their ambition stops with collecting a bunch of grad students, or downloading data from sources that wasn't meant for the purpose to which it's put.
