'During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of
crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then
a method was discovered for separating the ideas - which was to try one to see
if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became
organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are
now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have
difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when
nothing that they proposed ever really worked - or very little of it did.
But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later
get me into a conversation about UFO's, or astrology, or some form of
mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth.
And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world.
Most people believe so many wonderful things that I
decided to investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my
curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I found so much
junk that I'm overwhelmed. First I started out by investigating various ideas
of mysticism and mystic experiences. I went into isolation tanks and got many
hours of hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen,
which is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it's a wonderful place; you should
go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn't realize how MUCH there
was.
-
-
-
-
-
I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI
phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to
be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel
room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mind reading and
bending keys. He didn't do any mind reading that succeeded; nobody can read my
mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing
happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture
all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under
it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to
investigate that phenomenon.
But then I began to think, what else is there that
we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would
have been to check on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found
things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of
how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics
methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you'll see the reading scores keep
going down - or hardly going up - in spite of the fact that we continually use
these same people to improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that
doesn't work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their method
should work?
Another example is how to treat criminals. We
obviously have made no progress - lots of theory, but no progress - in
decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals.
Yet these things are said to be scientific. We
study them. And I think ordinary people with common sense ideas are intimidated
by this pseudo-science. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her
children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way - or is
even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not
necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one
way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do “the
right thing”', according to the experts.
So we really ought to look into theories that don't
work, and science that isn't science.
I think the educational and psychological studies I
mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes
with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So
they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of
the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces
on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas - he's
the controller - and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing
everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked
before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo
cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of
scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the
planes don't land.
Now it behoves me, of course, to tell you what
they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the
South Sea islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some
wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to
improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is
generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you
have learned in studying science in school - we never say explicitly what this
is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of
it explicitly. 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.
Details that could throw doubt on your
interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can - if
you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong - to explain it. If you make
a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put
down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.
There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together
to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it
fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out
right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to give all of the
information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just
the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast
it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't
soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm
talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest; it's a matter of
scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to
that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a
certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will - including
Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact,
which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.
We've learned from experience that the truth will
come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether
you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with
your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you
will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very
careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of
care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the
research in “alternative science”.
I would like to add something that's not essential
to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not
fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I'm talking about a
specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards
to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a
scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other
scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was
talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology
and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of
his work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren't any.” He said, “Yes”, but then we
won't get support for more research of this kind.” I think that's kind of
dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should
explain to the layman what you're doing - and if they don't support you under
those circumstances, then that's their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you've
made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should
always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish
results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish
BOTH kinds of results.
So I have just one wish for you - the good luck to
be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have
described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position
in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity.
May you have that freedom.'
Acknowledgement:
Cargo Cult Science (excerpts)
No comments:
Post a Comment