Quotes
← Older revision
Revision as of 05:10, 28 December 2015
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 69:
Line 69:
* There is ''one'' feature I notice that is generally missing in [[w:Cargo cult science|cargo cult science]]. … 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.''' <P>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. <P>In summary, the idea is to try to give ''all'' of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the [[information]] that leads to [[judgement]] in one particular direction or another.
* There is ''one'' feature I notice that is generally missing in [[w:Cargo cult science|cargo cult science]]. … 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.''' <P>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. <P>In summary, the idea is to try to give ''all'' of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the [[information]] that leads to [[judgement]] in one particular direction or another.
−
** "[http://
neurotheory
.
columbia
.edu/
~ken
/
cargo_cult
.
html Cargo Cult Science
]", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in ''Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!'', p. 341
+
** "[http://
calteches
.
library.caltech
.edu/
51/2
/
CargoCult
.
htm
]", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in ''Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!'', p. 341
* '''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 [[w:Cargo cult science|cargo cult science]].
* '''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 [[w:Cargo cult science|cargo cult science]].
−
** "[http://
neurotheory
.
columbia
.edu/
~ken
/
cargo_cult
.
html
Cargo Cult Science]", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in ''Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!'', p. 342
+
** "[http://
calteches
.
library.caltech
.edu/
51/2
/
CargoCult
.
htm
Cargo Cult Science]", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in ''Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!'', p. 342
* '''The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.'''
* '''The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.'''
−
** "[http://
neurotheory
.
columbia
.edu/
~ken
/
cargo_cult
.
html Cargo Cult Science
]", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in ''Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!'', p. 343
+
** "[http://
calteches
.
library.caltech
.edu/
51/2
/
CargoCult
.
htm
]", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in ''Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!'', p. 343
* All experiments in [[psychology]] are not of this [cargo cult] type, however. For example there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on — with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train rats to go to the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.<P>The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe they were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.<P>He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go to the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.<P>Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using — not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.<P>I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or of being very careful. '''They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.'''
* All experiments in [[psychology]] are not of this [cargo cult] type, however. For example there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on — with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train rats to go to the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.<P>The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe they were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.<P>He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go to the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.<P>Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using — not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.<P>I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or of being very careful. '''They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.'''
−
** "[http://
neurotheory
.
columbia
.edu/
~ken
/
cargo_cult
.
html
Cargo Cult Science]", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in ''Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!'', p. 345
+
** "[http://
calteches
.
library.caltech
.edu/
51/2
/
CargoCult
.
htm
Cargo Cult Science]", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in ''Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!'', p. 345
* There's a kind of saying that you don't understand its meaning, 'I don't believe it. It's too crazy. I'm not going to accept it.'… '''You'll have to accept it. It's the way nature works. If you want to know how nature works, we looked at it, carefully. Looking at it, that's the way it looks. You don't like it? Go somewhere else, to another universe where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy.''' I can't help it, okay? If I'm going to tell you honestly what the world looks like to the human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like.
* There's a kind of saying that you don't understand its meaning, 'I don't believe it. It's too crazy. I'm not going to accept it.'… '''You'll have to accept it. It's the way nature works. If you want to know how nature works, we looked at it, carefully. Looking at it, that's the way it looks. You don't like it? Go somewhere else, to another universe where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy.''' I can't help it, okay? If I'm going to tell you honestly what the world looks like to the human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like.