I didn't say, nor would I, that science contradicts the Lydiard system. Such a statement doesn't make any sense to me. I think science helps us understand why a system works (or doesn't), but I consider it completely outside the system. So modern science only contradicts old science, but for me, both are decoupled from the Lydiard system.
I don't know what you want to say by "outdated". Sure the system was developed sometime ago, before I was born, but these things don't have expiration dates, do they? It's not like milk. My PC is outdated, but still does everything I want, as long as I don't have to upgrade anything.
And the success of other systems don't necessarily show a failure of the Lydiard system. Will following the Lydiard system fail to bring me to my full potential, or fail to bring me high peaks during important races? Will violating a Lydiard principal bring these things faster or higher?
I would realize it was inadequate if someone could properly show it was inadequate. If it's really true, it shouldn't be that hard.
That´s not just the modern science knowledge that contradicts SOME aspects of the Lydiard system. That is the modern trial and error done for the last 3 1/2 decades. To be a long period of months with aerobic runs and without intervals, to train the anaerobic for some 6 weeks that´s all outdate.
When do you realise that Lydiard is outdate and is innadequate in many aspects ?