The Truth about the Starting Strength Method

[George Christiansen]

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

That and the practice of doing science. That is what we are talking about.

But apparently you want to pretend that criticizing the practice of certain fields like pharmacology, climatology, and exercise physiology is you doing critical thinking, but me thinking that the same human error and bias that is fucking up things in those fields might potentially show up in other fields is somehow crazy science denial talk.

That look a hell of a lot like a double standard to me.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Okay, George. You got me.

[tallison]

I disagree. It highlights the problems that arise from a confusion of science with truth, problems that are given strength by the conflating of "peer review" with validation of published work. Peer review does not do this.

Instead we have mountains of publications containing studies of varying quality, with the unprocessed data nearly always unavailable, and the methods incomplete enough that replication - testing - is very difficult to undertake. When we wade into this mess, to quote Sullivan,

"We should all be prepared for an immersion into the ugly reality that is Rippetoe’s Law: 95% of the shit that goes on everywhere is fucked up. This unfortunate mandate applies doubly to biomedical research in general and strength research in particular. Anybody who has to wade through biomedical literature looking for valuable knowledge knows that it’s comparable to looking for pearls in an outhouse bucket."

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.

OK, so "strength engineering" rather than "strengthology". That part I think I get. Maybe what you guys are wanting to say is that the relevant science is settled, so, what's left is the honing of its application (am I close?).

I also get that certain areas that call themselves "science" hardly deserve the label (I'm looking at you, "exercise science"). Also that biomedical science has been greatly degraded by letting the fox of private interests in the hen-house of what should be basic research.

Basically, people fuck everything up, but the mechanism of science which includes peer review (not as a guarantee, but as one measure amongst many) seems to me to deserve our respect and constant vigilance for what it has brought us in terms of our understanding of the world we live in -- not abandonment with derision for the ways in which human nature tends toward bias.

A lot of this derisive discussion seems to me to risk throwing a very valuable baby out with some very dirty bath water.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Basically, people fuck everything up, but the mechanism of science which includes peer review (not as a guarantee, but as one measure amongst many) seems to me to deserve our respect and constant vigilance for what it has brought us in terms of our understanding of the world we live in -- not abandonment with derision for the ways in which human nature tends toward bias.

You seem to have figured it out.

[George Christiansen]

Okay, George. You got me.

I'm not trying to "get" anyone. I am trying to understand, be understood, and come to the best understanding: like science.

Remember it was me defending your use of the quote in this thread and then you and Sully trying to paint me a flat earther because apparently I used a trigger word.

This is a difficult medium for communicating, added to by the fact that we are all kinda sloppy about how we "talk" on the interwebz: kinda like science.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I get it George. Really. We fucked up, really bad, and we're sorry.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Basically, people fuck everything up, but the mechanism of science which includes peer review (not as a guarantee, but as one measure amongst many) seems to me to deserve our respect and constant vigilance for what it has brought us in terms of our understanding of the world we live in -- not abandonment with derision for the ways in which human nature tends toward bias.

A lot of this derisive discussion seems to me to risk throwing a very valuable baby out with some very dirty bath water.

You seem to have figured it out.

Yes.

[stef]

Basically, people fuck everything up, but the mechanism of science which includes peer review

Peer review is part of the modern publication process. Reviewers are looking at the dressed-up output, not the data behind it. The problem is it gets presented as some sort of approval for the published work. It is not. How often do you read "peer reviewed published research?" What do you think that phrase is suggesting? How do you see it interpreted by those who read it? How often are things presented as "scientific fact," extrapolated out from something was a result of some specific experimental condition?

Aside from problems there, science isn't unique at all in correcting errors over time or in having others review work. Corrections happen far faster with, say, an audit.

A lot of this derisive discussion seems to me to risk throwing a very valuable baby out with some very dirty bath water.

No one is throwing out babies. No one's against science. But science isn't a magical process, it's only a tool. There's a whole lot of pretentious, self-congratulatory mythology surrounding it that is unearned and which isn't helpful in actually testing and being skeptical or advancing any sort of knowledge. Rather, it is exactly the sort of thing that encourages mindless acceptance and undermines the scientific process and progress. Often it's scientists using that sort of emotional appeal - no matter that it is unscientific - often it is from enthusiastic write ups from those on the fringes or outside the process.

[Rob Thomson]

Hold your emotions right now. Hold the faith you have in Feynman. Compare different definitions of science and see which works best.
'Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.' cannot lead you very far... it does not tell you what to do.

The fact that you've chosen to take this statement as Feynman's definition of science is interesting, to say the least. Shakespeare said, "All the world's a stage." Do you think he meant that, literally? The figure of speech Feynman is using is called 'oversimplification.'

[Matthew_888]

Peer review is part of the modern publication process.

He is mistaking peer reviewed science papers with reproducible results.

Rather, it is exactly the sort of thing that encourages mindless acceptance and undermines the scientific process and progress. Often it's scientists using that sort of emotional appeal - no matter that it is unscientific - often it is from enthusiastic write ups from those on the fringes or outside the process.

They just want more funding or are paid to say bullshit like degrass tyson (pushing authority arguments).

Publicly funded science ROI is... 0 :
- BLS.
- OCDE
- For once... the WSJ

People who actually do science know that the publishing system is a complete fraud: it's not even unknown anymore (youtube, turn captions on)
It cannot not be a fraud: benefits of Elsevier (major science publisher) are higher than the ones of Apple... not bad for a website and couple of pdf on the Internet (what is mistaken for scientific results today).

Actually, scientists do not even invent most of the times: they comes after when they do not lie outright about who made the discovery. Examples of things invented by people w/o the "scientist" sticker: Microwave, Computer, Television, Chronometer, Lightbulb, Flight, Radio, Bagless vacuum cleaner, Steam and rails, Telescope and microscope, Refrigeration, Jet Engine...

Science is fitting what you think the world is with experimental results. The thinking part often takes the form of mathematics, but not always. The experimental parts has been described by Fisher (The design of experiments).

Anyone can be a "scientist": you just have to apply the scientific process: fitting what you think the world is with experimental results.