Introduction:

• “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool” (Feynman).
• This is the main point of Feynman’s 1974 Caltech commencement speech
• What does it mean to not fool one’s self?
• Feynman is pointing to the idea of scientific integrity
• he defines this as, “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 do as a scientist.” (Feynman)
• In order to impress upon his audience the danger of a lack of scientific integrity, Feynman relies on the exigence of an increase in improper research in science, logical comparisons between this research and the cargo cults of Melanesia, and rapport through an understanding of his audience’s struggles.

Body 1 (may be split into 2 paragraphs):

• Feynman’s speech came at a kairotic moment by reflecting on the scientific industry’s transition from independent research to large-scale funded research in the mid- to late-1900s.
• After the end of World War Two in America, “the norms and self-regulating aspects of ‘little science’ — communities that valued questioning, craftsmanship, skepticism, self-doubt, critical appraisal of the quality of evidence and the verifiable, and verifiably replicable, advancement of human knowledge — gave way to current approaches centering on metrics, funding, publication, and prestige” (Stark et. al.).
• Feynman notices this in the field of psychology and gives examples
• This reflects a greater trend at the time of Feynman’s speech
• “When understanding, care, and honesty become valued less than novelty, visibility, scale, funding, and salary, science is at risk. Elements of the present crisis were anticipated by scholars such as Price and Ravetz in the 1960s and 1970s” (Stark et. al.)
• Feynman relates this to his field of physics, concerned that this will put its integrity at risk.
• Says that his friend was not allowed to do a control test for a heavy hydrogen experiment using the same apparatus as the main experiment because, “there wouldn’t be any new result. And so the men in charge of progress at NAL (National Accelerator Laboratory) are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying — possibly — the value of the experiments themselves” (Feynman).
• Feynman’s rhetorical argument is strengthened by highlighting this crisis and it’s implications

Body 2 (may be split into two paragraphs):

• In order to make his point of faulty scientific research more understandable, Feynman sets up a logical appeal by likening this research to the cargo cults of Melanesia.
• During World War Two, modern armies set up bases on Pacific islands, and would bring planes and supplies, some of which benefitted the indigenous peoples. After the war, once the military forces had deserted the islands, some islanders had been found to have made their own runways and towers out of wood — they had arranged everything just as it once was in hopes of the planes and supplies returning.
• As Feynman puts it, “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.”
• Feynman goes on to explain how research done without integrity is like a cargo cult, since one follow the scientific method but still have flaws in research — due to external interests — and this can cause false statements to be recognized as scientific and true
• This logical appeal helps to conceptualize the idea of lack of scientific integrity and convince the audience that this is as bad a a primitive cargo cult
• Also uses a logical example of this in 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 being dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to the 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” (Feynman).
• By walking through the advertisement, Feynman points out the logical flaws and how the advertisement skews the science
• Feynman then provides a logical walkthrough of how this affected past scientific work with Millikan’s oil drop experiment.
• “Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops and got an answer we know to be not quite right…It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit higher than that…until they settle down to a number which is higher…When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong — and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong” (Feynman)
• Feynman shows how even when not considering a monetary motivation, scientific integrity may be compromised by reverence of other scientists and fear of being incorrect
• This may be of particular importance to his audience of young scientists

Body 3 (May be split into two paragraphs)

• Feynman then appeals to an understanding of his audience’s struggles to further motivate listeners to exemplify scientific integrity
• Audience is students graduating from Caltech
• they are young scientists about to leave the comfort of university research and go out into the world of funded research
• Feynman recognizes that scientific integrity is, “Something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.”
• This is may be for good reason because in modern society, “the dystopian aspects of science funding and academic career arrangements are delicate topics, as the teacher has to weigh the chance of discouraging students against the need to give them realistic expectations about what lies ahead” (Saltelli)
• This understanding between Feynman and his audience helps to promote his message as he is stating scientific integrity can still be built, starting now, and can be maintained even through the ordeals that lie ahead
• To further emphasize this, Feynman states in his closing remarks, “I have just one wish for you — the good luck to be somewhere 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, for financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity.”
• In a world where scientific research “will often call for compromise between vocation and survival” (Saltelli), this remark by Feynman provides hope to his audience

Conclusion:

• Through his appeals to the exigence of a national decline in scientific integrity, logical comparisons and examples, and an emotional and credible connection to his audience of university graduates, Feynman is able to create a compelling agreement for the danger of Cargo Cult Science.
• Given during the mid 1970s, the speech responded to the rhetorical opportunity to advocate against the emerging system of externally-motivated scientific research.
• Feynman masterfully combined logical arguments about current issues in psychology and physics, comparing these modern inefficiencies to the obvious fallacies of Melanesian cargo cults.
• In order to further persuade and motivate his audience to reject Cargo Cult Science, Feynman builds rapport through honest but hopeful reflections of the audience’s personal situations
• As much as Feynman’s speech responded to a particular issue of his time, it continues to provide a strong message for scientists today
• Our modern world is still riddled with cargo cult science, but Feynman’s use of strong rhetoric remains a force against this science, still educating young scientists that integrity is not only a privilege but a responsibility.

Source links:

Cargo Cult Science (caltech.edu)

Full article: Teaching scientific research integrity: A case study (tandfonline.com)

Cargo-cult Statistics and Scientific Crisis | Significance | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Sources:

Feynman, Richard P. (1974) Cargo Cult Science. Engineering and Science, 37 (7). pp. 10-13. ISSN 0013-7812 https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechES:37.7.CargoCult

Philip B. Stark, Andrea Saltelli, Cargo-cult Statistics and Scientific Crisis, Significance, Volume 15, Issue 4, August 2018, Pages 40–43, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01174.x

After listening to my speech, I am quite pleased with how I did. I felt like I did particularly well with remembering the structure of my speech and elaborating on each point, however this may just be because I am familiar with the points of my speech. I also did not use too many filler words, although there were a few, however I was worried that my whole speech would be riddled with filler words, and it was not. I think that my tone of voice and speed was mostly adequate, however I did notice that during the song at the beginning and in the conclusion paragraph I began to talk a bit too fast. My last major positive of my speech was the song, I think I played it pretty well and it provided a good hook and lead into the speech.

There are still a few things that I think could have been improved. As mentioned before, I think the use of filler words and the speed of the speech could have been done better, and I also think that eye contact might have been a problem. I was looking at everyone in the room, however I don’t think I actually made eye contact with anyone. Additionally, I relied on my notecard quite a bit, which I think was mostly fine, but I should try to limit it in the future. I should also be more intentional with my gestures and movement in future speeches; in this speech I stood sort of stiff and also just did random hand gestures without any real intent. In terms of content, I think the two main things that could have been improved were the connection between the song and the intro paragraph, and connecting lines from the second verse of the song to the main point about anti-war protests.

The first thing that happened that I wasn’t aware of was speeding up during the song and at the end of the speech, I guess that was because of nerves. Another thing I didn’t notice was that I looked to my right for the majority of the speech. Granted, most people were too my right, but from the camera’s perspective it seemed like I was always looking over there and maybe I wasn’t connecting with the people in front of me and to my left. Finally, I didn’t realize that I was making gestures and moving my hands, I was doing that subconsciously, which I actually think helped my speech a bit, but it would help in the future to have intentional gestures planned out.

Oscar Felegy 

9/6/2023 

Civic Artifact Speech 

• Visual Aid – Lyrics to the Song 

1. Introduction, start with singing verse 1 and chorus of “Waiting on the World to Change” 
   1. As a young college student in 2023, sometimes it can feel like all we’re doing is waiting for the world to change. From a young age we are all told that we can grow up to be famous, influential, and powerful, but for right now, it seems like we are each just a small voice that’s never heard, and that disconnect can cause a sort of political apathy. This song, “Waiting on the World to Change,” written by John Mayer in 2006, frames the civic as ultimately futile, through explaining this ideology of inaction so prevalent in young generations, responding to the song’s contemporary exigence of the Iraq War, and developing the commonplace that what an individual does hardly matters on a large scale.
2. Point 1 – The song explains the ideology of inaction. 
   1. Upon intital analysis, one would assume that the song is based on an apolitical ideology. 
   2. Indeed, it does seem to encourage not getting involved in politics. 
   3. However, Mayer is trying to prove that he and his generation rather have an ideology of inaction. He reminds listeners that “It’s not that we don’t care, we just know that the fight ain’t fair” (Mayer 1:39) 
   4. This is the basis of his lament on the ideology of inaction, as if there is no way to effectuate a change, why even bother? 
   5. But we live in a democratic society, where are voices are supposed to matter? So how did we get to this point, where engaging in civic action becomes futile? 
3. Point 2 – The song responds to the exigence of the Iraq War.  
   1. Behind the general message of political insignificance, Mayer also includes an anti-war message. 
   2. He mentions that “If we had the power to bring our neighbors home from war / they would have never missed a Christmas, no more ribbons on their doors” (Mayer 1:07) 
   3. This is a reference to the Iraq War, which although the war started 3 years prior to this song being written, the year of this song was when the war had fell out of favor with the majority of Americans (Brittanica). 
   4. Between 2003-2006 there were several large protests, however none of them seemed to elicit any large change in policy, and by the end of 2006 President Bush announced that he would be increasing the number of US troops in Iraq (Britannica) 
   5. Mayer’s song responds to these kairotic events by attempting to evaluate the civic ideology created by people seeing their civic efforts amount to nothing. 
4. Point 3 – The song relies on the commonplace that our government system makes the voice of one individual insignificant 
   1. As stated before, in a democratic society like America, everyone’s voice is supposed to matter. 
   2. However, this is contrasted with the commonplace that power is only really consolidated in government officials.  
   3. Mayer reflects on this commonplace with the lines: 
   4. “It’s hard to beat the system, when you’re standing at a distance” (Mayer 0:55) 
   5. Recognizing how social constructs make it hard for an individual to make a change on a national or international scale. 
   6. “Cause when they own the information, they can bend it all they want” (Mayer 1:22) 
   7. Referring to common idea that political parties are selective and manipulative with information in order to inhibit the free thought of the public. 
5. Conclusion 
   1. Mayer uses these commonplaces, the exigence of the Iraq War, and the ideology of inaction to frame the civic as ultimately futile, at least for the time being, until the political and social structures in our world change. However, the song is not a call to the ideology of inaction that it describes. By the end of the song, Mayer optimistically remarks: “One day our generation, is gonna rule the population” (Mayer 2:44). And when our generation does, then we will be able to finally change the world for the better. But until then, all we can do is keep waiting, waiting on the world to change. 

Sources: 

“Iraq War | Summary, Causes, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, and Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 18 Aug. 2023, www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War/Occupation-and-continued-warfare#ref231540. 

Mayer, John. “Waiting On the World to Change.” Spotify, https://open.spotify.com/track/5imShWWzwqfAJ9gXFpGAQh?si=53450459b433447e 

“It’s not that we don’t care, we just know that the fight ain’t fair.”

John Mayer’s track, “Waiting on the World to Change” serves as an antithesis to the concept of civic engagement. Through the song, Mayer identifies that the world is not ideal, and that he, his community, and his generation wish they could change the way things are done. However, Mayer then asserts that he and his community, are too young; not influential enough, to have any capacity to change national and international policy. His provided solution is conveyed in the title of the song — wait until the world changes. In this way, Mayer describes that there is no obligation or even a meaning to civic engagement; all of our participation is ultimately futile until the world changes.

“Waiting on the World to Change” was written in 2006, in response to the exigencies of public dissatisfaction with the Iraq War and the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mayer created the song as an explanation of his generations’ political apathy towards these issues, and strategically used his power and place as a prominent musician to promote his political message to a wide audience, consisting of listeners across many generations.

However, across these age differences, two separate interpretations of the song’s message developed. Mayer’s intended message, appreciated by fans of similar age to Mayer, was to state his feeling of helplessness politically, particularly in relation to his and his generation’s disapproval of the Iraq War. This message gained traction during the kairotic events of the Iraq War, however after the war’s end, many people, particularly of older generations, began to criticize the song rather as a general call for political apathy.

Indeed, implicit in the song are the ideologies of apoliticism. However, the song is not an endorsement of these ideologies, but instead a disappointed reflection that holding any other strong political ideology will hardly bring a change about in the world. Mayer backs up this point with the commonplace that it’s nearly impossible to make a change as one person in a large society, (“We just feel like we don’t have the means / to rise above and beat it.”) Conversely however, Mayer ends with an optimistic message. Relying on the commonplace that things will get better with time, he reminds listeners that, “One day our generation / will rule the population,” and then, finally, the world will change.

Living in America in 2023, it can feel like no progress is being made in our society. With the upcoming presidential election, we can hope that things will finally begin to change for the better. But in the end, all we can do is cast our vote and, “keep on waiting, waiting on the world to change.”