The Truth about the Starting Strength Method

[George Christiansen]

Taking things out of the artificial confines of the lab has the advantage of having the testing built into the process. You get called on your mistakes much faster, and don't get credit just for pushing something into print.

This, and the frequency with which the assumed results are reproduce, is why engineering is a harder science than climatology, and why SS is more akin to engineering than all the peer reviewed crap our the media covers in order to drive hypochondriacs to their channels and sites.

The saddest part, in regards to exercise science, is that is is a harder science -as demonstrated by SS and what is demonstrates, but they are completely screwing the pooch in their process.

[George Christiansen]

This was a function of cultural bias influencing the development of the theory.

Yes. And there is nothing to stop bias from informing any other development of theory because bias is part of the interpretation of data.

We would like to think that we are or will get better at eliminating for bias, but that seems to be much more of a faith statement than a conclusion based on the evidence.

And once again, which process generated the revision, science or non-science?

Both. Science provided the data to justify the adjustments or additions, but things like social and political pressure always inform our decision making.

Maybe we can argue that you average scientist is quite a bit more intelligent than you average non scientist, but I do not for a second believe that anyone ever just follows the fact to where they lead in any decision making process. I do not even believe that it is possible to do so. I think it goes against how we evolved and the way the need to survive our immediate environment actually makes being detached and rational counter productive up until very modern times where we have had the leisure to do so.

A "theory" is an explanation for a set of observed facts. As new facts accumulate, the explanation usually changes. It would be surprising if it didn't. An accumulative process does not always appear to be superficially additive. For example, electric cars are an automotive development.

I agree with this, but that doesn't exclude all the genuine corrections to genuine mistakes, either from errors in the data collection process or in the interpretation of the data.

I am simply saying that the scientific method is not necessarily perfect, if for no other reason than the limitations of those practicing it, but that doesn't take away from it being the best option we have for many things right now.

I don't even see how this view is controversial.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

And as to Sully's dated Kansas reference, from Wikipedia:
(quote)

As to your Texas reference:

(quote)

Well, that's a relief. For now.

The saddest part, in regards to exercise science, is that is is a harder science -as demonstrated by SS and what is demonstrates, but they are completely screwing the pooch in their process.

On this we can agree.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I am simply saying that the scientific method is not necessarily perfect, if for no other reason than the limitations of those practicing it, but that doesn't take away from it being the best option we have for many things right now.

This is like saying Algebra is not perfect. You would be confusing algebra with mathematicians.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

This is like saying Algebra is not perfect. You would be confusing algebra with mathematicians.

The analogy I've been thinking of all day is the squat. If we find that 40% of people are doing squats wrong and getting nowhere, that doesn't mean The Squat is fucked up.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Also, George, I have been kind of a dick on this thread, in particular to you. It's Other Stuff, not you, not the thread. I don't agree with everything you say by any means, but I was, as you note, being rhetorical rather than substantive, just because I felt like being a turd and just wanted to argue. I apologize.

[George Christiansen]

This is like saying Algebra is not perfect. You would be confusing algebra with mathematicians.

No. It is like saying that mathematicians still make mistakes in spite of algebra being perfect.

The problem in both cases is human error, which again, isn't just a question of bad computing skills.

[George Christiansen]

The analogy I've been thinking of all day is the squat. If we find that 40% of people are doing squats wrong and getting nowhere, that doesn't mean The Squat is fucked up.

But I am not saying that the squat is fucked up, so your analogy does work.

An accurate analogy would be some quarter squatter coming up with a theory based upon quarter squatting (while thinking he was actually squatting), me pointing out that I don't trust the theory because it is based on quarter squat (like every fucking exercise science paper that has been torn a new asshole on this site) and then you telling me I hate squats.

I don't hate science any more than you guys hate exercise science. You both just hate the current state of exercise science and how it influences public discourse. That is how I feel about public discourse about science in general, although I'd say that the state of science in general is doing a hell of a lot better than the state of exercise science in general.

That is what I find so incredibly ironic about your comments: you are casting aspersions on my attitude that fit the both of your own views just as well as they fit mine...which is pretty poorly, but..........

[insert kitchenware cliches here]

Also, George, I have been kind of a dick on this thread, in particular to you. It's Other Stuff, not you, not the thread. I don't agree with everything you say by any means, but I was, as you note, being rhetorical rather than substantive, just because I felt like being a turd and just wanted to argue. I apologize.

Well now you went a broke the whole fucking internet by apologizing.

Probably a net positive in the long run.

[Cheesepuff]

So, back to the point of this thread. I like the use of engineering in the SS value proposition.

"People" still trust engineering.
"People" have lost faith in "science" over that past several decades.

IMO, the trust levels were similar at one time.

How people feel can be legitimate or not, but at the end of the day it is beyond your control, possibly even their control.

Most people's "experience of science" comes as part of a sales pitch. The people making these pitches "know what you want", because they are going to convince, trick or pound you with repetition until you do want what they are pitching.

IMO, scientists got thrown under the bus because of how "science" has been selectively and creatively used to pitch poducts over time. So scientists got thrown in with hucksters.

I don't think we are in a position to fix the problems with public perception of "science".

[Mark Rippetoe]

I don't hate science any more than you guys hate exercise science. You both just hate the current state of exercise science and how it influences public discourse. That is how I feel about public discourse about science in general, although I'd say that the state of science in general is doing a hell of a lot better than the state of exercise science in general.

So now we're talking about the public discourse about science? That's fine.

scientists got thrown under the bus because of how "science" has been selectively and creatively used to pitch poducts over time. So scientists got thrown in with hucksters.

I don't think we are in a position to fix the problems with public perception of "science".

"Scientists" decided to get funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of the investigation. The result have been less-than-helpful to their reputations -- AGW Theology is a direct result of "Scientists" abandoning science in order to get to play in the funding pool. This is not the fault of science.