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