Uhm, but then, it would work only if applied to the same entity that was deceptive in the past. Applying this to some other party would still make little to no sense, unless you've got some reason to believe this other party wants to deceive you as well.
In science, we're required to take a default deny approach. The scientific method treats everything as wrong or a lie by default. Then, a combination of independent review and replication add confidence to the claims. Assuming you trust that person.
Later on, media reported pervasive problems in reviewer independence (especially drug studies), statistical claims (especially p hacking), and replication ("replication crisis"). So, we now have more reason to not trust scientific claims without independent replication. That's double true for statistical claims.
If I read one, I say "maybe true, maybe not." At least brings me above a random guess in a belief on that topic. If they're highly biased, I ignore their claims on that topic entirely since cherry-picking evidence is so common. Certain sources have enough independent betting or positive outcomes to trust by default in a probabilistic sense. A person whose chips work is fairly trustworthy on basic, chip design and their own product designs. I default on believing their essential claims but know they might be disproven later.
That's how empiricism works. Anyone doing less is probably using some combo of faith, testimony, logic, or feelings. They can also dress these up with scientific language or mathematical formulas, too. But was it rigorously reviewed by someone who doubted everything about it? Often not for statistical or scientific-sounding claims.
> The scientific method treats everything as wrong or a lie by default
No, the scientific method requires proof both for a positive and for a negative answer. If we can't prove neither, all we can say is that we don't know whether something is true or false. Think i.e. about Riemann's hypothesis or the Collatz conjecture: should we say those are wrong because no one so far proved them to be correct?
Unless someone obviously shares common goals with you they are a potential adversary. When faced with a tool that you are confident can be used to deceive you, and a potential adversary who you are confident is aware of this fact, you should then clearly distrust that tool in that context.
