Cargo Cult Science Essay

Cargo cult science is a term used by Richard Feynman to describe a method or idea that imitates the scientific process but is not done for a scientific purpose. In “The Uncertainty of Science” he goes on to clarify that legitimate science accounts for the uncertainties found in science: it is the search for answers, faults in methods, and data to support theories. However, in “Cargo Cult Science” Feynman explains how sometimes “science” is used for personal gain, instead of for the benefit of society like actual science should. Cargo cult sciences do not occur only amongst scientists, but by anyone who improperly uses/executes. There are many different types of cargo cult science that each happen for different reasons.. Cargo cult science
is as easy as producing false data, claims, using faulty processes/experiments, and purposefully ignoring facts. People can do this for multiple reasons, usually involving some sort of personal benefit: funding/money, publicity, avoiding blame, etc. One example that Feynman gives of cargo cult science is how everyone that ran rat running experiments ignored the findings of Mr. Young, who had found that in order to properly run the experiment the corridor needed to be placed in sand (Cargo Cult Science 13). Then in “The Uncertainty of Science” Feynman claims that proper science is just as much, if not more, about trying to disprove theories as it is about supporting them (Uncertainty 17). So, if proper science is about supporting and disproving theories, then how can a proper rat running experiment be executed, if the scientist does not put the corridor in the sand? Without accounting for Mr. Young’s data, the scientist is unable to fully test their factor, they are instead testing several conditions, which results in sources of error in their experiment that often times are not recorded. Another author that has experience with cargo cult sciences, is Kermit Vandivier. Vandivier writes about these experiments in “Why Should My Conscience Bother Me?”. The first example he talks about is the bid that the B. F. Goodrich Co. places in order to get the contract for the aircraft brakes (WSMCBM 77). This is an example of cargo cult science because of how the company did it. The company had placed a bid so low that no company could compete with it, but this isn’t the problem. The problem is that the company’s bid was so low, they were prepared to lose money on the deal. The Goodrich Company had only placed such a low bid to get their name back in the market. The fact that they willingly put the business in financial risk to do so is unethical and irrational, which is a form of a cargo cult science. Not only had the company blatantly put itself at risk by placing the bid but increased the risk when Sink rejected Lawson’s proposal.
Lawson had brought data to Mr. Sink, clearly showing evidence of a design better than Warren’s, but was brushed off. Sink decided to side with Warren even though he knew that Lawson was correct. As Vandivier says, “to concede’ that Lawson’s calculations were correct would also mean conceding that Warren’s calculations were incorrect.” This means that Sink would be held responsible for trusting the judgment of someone unfit for the job. So, instead of admitting his mistake, Sink ignored Lawson’s evidence and continued to back Warren’s work. By doing so, Sink caused more cargo culting to occur: improper experiments and false data that only showed what the company wanted. This case is similar to the case in Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science”, in which the work of Mr. Young had been ignored, leading to poor rat running
experiments. There are however, examples of proper scientific methods in Vandivier’s work.
The work done by Lawson was completely scientific. He continued to test Warren’s four pad design, until he knew that the design was incapable of handling the stress, which is exactly what Feynman says science is about in “The Uncertainty of Science” (17). He then ran his own calculations and found different answers, instead of altering them to fit Warren’s calculations, like many scientists had with Millikan’s experiments, he reported them to Warren and then to Sink, which is exactly what science is about: finding a problem, solving the problem, and reporting the answers to other scientists, or in this case engineers. Feynman splits science into three categories: “…a method of finding things out…[a] body of knowledge arising from the things found out…[and] the actual doing of new things.” (Uncertainty 10). In order for science to be actual science, it must benefit society and not an individual, this means that experiments and data are done and recorded correctly. The data should then be reported to other scientists accordingly: not like the scientists that Freeman Dyson discussed in his, “Science on the Rampage”, whom had become so obsessed with their beliefs that they began reporting them as
theories.
Science is not about an individual’s beliefs, it is about theories that can be tested and supported. Cargo cult science can be viewed as science’s evil twin: while real science benefits society, cargo culting only benefits an individual or group of individuals. This “evil twin” leads to situations as described in Wendell Berry’s “Solving for Patterns”, solutions to problems that are only temporary, or technology that causes more damage than it does good, which is a danger to society. Cargo cult science can be easily passed off as science, but it is drastically different from actual science.