On what basis can we judge whether a theory or statement is reliable?
In the world of mysticism and magic, a statement is generally considered reliable if it comes from a completely reliable source. ‘God said it.’ Or at least his prophet did. Or a philosopher (e.g. Aristotle) wrote it. Or a sage with a perfectly holy life told us so.
In the modern version of the same thing, it was famously stated by a professor. Or it is claimed by the American secret services. They cannot lie or be wrong. Do you not believe them? Verifying claims from the right source is unnecessary at best and sacrilegious at worst.
One variation on this is making a claim in the right way. For example, someone spent several days invoking the goddess of wisdom. Alternatively, they could have used a lot of mathematical formulas. Or they used a brilliant computer program.
Empirical science takes the opposite approach. It does not ask who made the claim or how complex their thinking was. Instead, it asks how the claim (theory, hypothesis, etc.) was tested. This discovery is probably the most valuable legacy of medieval Christian civilisation, specifically the conceptual nominalist branch of thought.
Ideal science would therefore be blind in the sense that it would not know who is the author of a tested claim and how they arrived at it. This is an ideal that is difficult to achieve in practice, even though it is sometimes sought (for example, by ensuring that the person evaluating a text does not know who its author is).
In any case, those who control the quality of science should be absolutely clear about these things. Otherwise, they are charlatans themselves.