
Cargo Cult Science (1974) - JumpCrisscross
http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.php
======
grzm
For reference, previously on HN

\- 8 months ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11669004](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11669004)

\- 3 years ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6543791](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6543791)

\- 6 years ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629571](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629571)

\- 7 years ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=723140](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=723140)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Cargo%20Cult%20Science&sort=by...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Cargo%20Cult%20Science&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)

~~~
jimnotgym
And I hope it comes up every year in the future too

------
quonn
> It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that
> corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards.
> For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything
> that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
> it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you
> thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they
> worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

The problem is that in the current system (based on publishing as much as
possible quickly and at prestigious conferences) there are few incentives to
do this. Instead people learn to game the system. Academics need to relax a
bit, but they can't, since there is so much competition.

~~~
mr_overalls
I see this narrative about the current publish-or-perish system quite often.

How is the current system of academic incentives different from the system of
a few decades ago?

~~~
analog31
In my view there are a couple of factors involved. First, it's my impression
that it keeps getting more and more competitive. Job security is being
whittled away.

Second, we've left the century of physics and entered the century of biology.
Most of what you read about, regarding the "reproducibility crisis" and so
forth, has to do with the medical and behavioral sciences, which have grown in
relation to the physical sciences. It's to the point where, when somebody
generalizes about "science research," it's likely to be about life science,
and a few of us physical scientists realize that we're an insignificant
exception.

I wouldn't say that life science is better or worse than physical science, but
that it introduces a new set of problems that may take a few decades to
address. One difference is that the life sciences seem more dependent (for now
at least) on weak statistics.

Disclosure: I'm a physicist in industry.

------
jimnotgym
This subject is something the data science/ ML world need to take very
seriously. I am constantly passed snippets of google analytics as 'proof'
something on the website worked with no analysis of what else could have
caused it. With pay per click you get some very sulky looks when you say 'how
much of that result do you feel is caused by people clicking the ad that would
have clicked the search result if the ad wasn't there?'

Taking a tangent to talk about the style rather than content here.

To me the sign of the true greats in the world of thought are not just those
who make new discoveries or have new ideas, but those with the amazing power
to communicate those ideas _without jargon_. Feynman, a Nobel laureate, is
often remembered for his teaching as much as his discoveries. His books are
very funny too.

I remember, when I was college age, a friend telling me they were writing a
paper on Existentialism. They kept trying to explain it to me and I felt like
an idiot, I couldn't get the meaning of 'existence precedes essence' or
whatever, and became sure that philosophy was for smarter people than
me...until I picked up a copy of 'Existentialism and humanism' by Sartre,
whose idea it was in the first place, and it is not full of jargon and the
ideas are perfectly simple. I then read some Camus novels, which actually
changed my life(!) and again the ideas are perfectly simple. Their greatness
is in their challenge to the norm, the idea that we have everything the wrong
way round.

Now I treat anyone who uses jargon unnecessarily (and it can be a useful
shorthand at times) as someone who is trying to appear part of something they
are merely a commentator on, or who is trying to keep the uninitiated out. I
have so much more respect for people who can communicate in plain English.
Feynman was a master, as is Orwell.

Startup culture has some really annoying forms of this. Despite my interest
and involvement in technology I am actually foremost a finance professional
although I do less of it each each day. When you want to stay solvent you need
to _forecast your cash flows_ , not f __* around with 'burn rates'.
Verbalisation is a special form of rubbish. I heard a sportsman saying he was
'hoping to meddle in the Olympics', when I presume he meant '...win a medal'.
I especially hate language that is not specific, 'bi-weekly' means both
'fortnightly' and 'twice-weekly' for instance. I can only conclude that people
who use too much jargon are pseudo-intellectuals.

~~~
Swizec
A lot of this is also about understanding your audience. I will happily use
jargon when talking to peers and plain language when talking to others.

The problem on the internet is when content leaks. Sometimes a piece of
writing meant for peers gets shared to others and you get accused of using
jargon. Or inside jokes.

In reality the problem is that at first you have a period when you're finding
each other's common jargon. You think someone is a peer and you use jargon. If
they seem confused, you explain.

But some people feign understanding for fear of seeming dumb. Then you are in
trouble. You become the pompous ass with jargon and they learn nothing.

Maybe the answer is to never start with jargon and only upgrade if the other
person turns out to be a peer.

But that often offends them if they are indeed a peer.

~~~
marcosdumay
I think the GP hit the nail on the head with the phrasing "anyone who uses
jargon _unnecessarily_ ".

Jargon is meant to make communication clearer and faster between peers. If it
is making it less clear instead, there is something very wrong.

~~~
jimnotgym
I once worked at a company that had so much jargon they published a glossary
on their Sharepoint site, and a list of TLA's (Including 'TLA' itself as the
joke goes...it means 'Three Letter Acronym' for the uninitiated.

This is what I might call, 'treating the symptom of bad communication and not
the cause'.

~~~
dsmithatx
I think companies use Jargon to help instill a cult community on purpose. I
just proposed the idea of creating such a glossary as you mentioned. I can't
change a company with close to 100,000 people so I assimilate to get my pay
check.

One company I was at had a jar in each conference room. When you used an
internal name or acronym without first defining it, you had to put a $1 in the
acronym jar. This was used to buy the team lunch. They had to abolish the
policy as it was seen illegal to force such behavior. It worked very well
while it lasted though.

------
sebcat
I feel a lot of the things described in the article is happening in fields
like information security now. It was interesting listening to the 33C3 talk
"In Search of Evidence-Based IT-Security"[1] a couple of days ago and read
this Feynman-article now.

The article may have been posted before, but it was new to me.

[1] [https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8169-in_search_of_evidence-
based...](https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8169-in_search_of_evidence-based_it-
security)

~~~
blowski
This article is always relevant. There is always an expert telling people to
do something a certain way because reasons, despite zero evidence for those
reasons.

------
scandox
The thing that interests me about Cargo Culting in general is the extent to
which it is actually a means of learning - admittedly a very inefficient
means.

I wrote down my thoughts on this twice:

[http://www.selectedintelligence.com/post/42868061516/cargo-c...](http://www.selectedintelligence.com/post/42868061516/cargo-
cult-programming)

[http://www.selectedintelligence.com/post/52795739838/cargo-c...](http://www.selectedintelligence.com/post/52795739838/cargo-
cult-programming-part-ii)

------
tim333
Shame crazy ideas about rhino horn continued beyond the middle ages
[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/why-
does...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/why-does-a-rhino-
horn-cost-300-000-because-vietnam-thinks-it-cures-cancer-and-
hangovers/275881/)

------
Mouq
I know this is a classic and all, but I really feel like this would be a lot
better if it actually broke down the mythology of science history rather than
just being like, yup, this is the Ultimate Age of Reason™ but there's a lot of
people who just can't get with the program for some reason.

~~~
tim333
I'm not sure Feynman was arguing that it was the Ultimate Age of Reason™.
Hence "And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world."

------
_Codemonkeyism
I often use the term 'Cargo Cult Programming'. Not a very large but
significant amount of developers fall into that category sadly.

~~~
sjclemmy
I've always wondered about 'Cargo Cult' with reference to software
development. When you write software you are expecting a certain result.
Surely if you don't get the result, you try something else.

EDIT: ah right. So you 'may' get the result, but it's not due to the thing you
have ascribed it to.

~~~
tim333
Wikipedia actually has an article on "Cargo cult programming". They have it as
"the ritual inclusion of code or program structures that serve no real
purpose".

~~~
grzm
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming)

------
earthly10x
We as Climate Change scientists can benefit the most from this very powerful
and long term approach in communicating climate change science to the public.

------
tlow
I believe Richard Feynman originally coined this term as he discusses its
origin in his auto-biography 'Surely You Must Be Joking Mr. Feynman'.

To the Hacker News community I wanted to share a thought which is a belief
that human science and human cargo cult science will always be at odds. We
should not chastise the Cargo Cultists for their desire to engage in science,
but rather embrace and direct their misguided initiatives. Cargo Cult Science
will emerge in humanity again and again. I believe it is the duty of
scientists to aid Cargo Cultists in their pursuit of true science.

