To quote from the blogger Vox Day,

all of the arguments about the presumed reliability of science are ridiculous and easily shown to be false.

Science is no more self-correcting than is accounting.

Peer review is more commonly known as proofreading by the rest of the publishing industry and is not even

theoretically a means of ensuring accuracy or correctness. And scientists are observably less

trustworthy than nearly everyone except lawyers, politicians, and used car salesmen.

At least prostitutes are honest about their pursuits of grants and funding.

These days, the scientific process is mainly honored in the breach by professional credentialed scientists.

And we have a word for testable, reliable science.

That word is engineering.

So in his recent column at blogspot.com slash 2017-04, most science is fake science. He makes an excellent point about published science

and the peer review process that generates it. In the field of exercise sciences, in quotation

marks, in particular, we find an astonishing paucity of truly useful information with which to improve human performance.

Instead, we rely on what is essentially an engineering approach.

The application of physiology, the general kind, not the exercise kind, arithmetic, logic, analysis, and experience,

tempered by observation and constant adjustment for process optimization through the problem of

how to improve human performance. The application of these engineering principles

to the problem of human performance

has yielded the starting strength method,

which is testable, reliable science.

Unless you are already a strength specialist, and you're probably not unless you have spent many years preparing for powerlifting competition and are therefore not the subject of our concern here, you can improve your performance by getting stronger, 100% of the time.

The tested, reliable truth is that, when performed correctly,

...