3 ms·

One point rarely mentioned in regards to Cargo Cultism, is that the fundamental error of the cargo cultists wasn't that they didn't understand what made the pla

One point rarely mentioned in regards to Cargo Cultism, is that the fundamental error of the cargo cultists wasn't that they didn't understand what made the planes land. The fundamental error was that they kept doing it, even though it wasn't working. We don't know how a lot of our most effective pharmaceuticals work, but we at least know to stop using them if (in a rigorous test) they don't work (although people with $$ in their eyes sometimes try to get us to do it anyway). Now, the magnitude of the error would depend on how long the cargo cultists kept doing this, even though the planes didn't return, and I have never heard how long that was. If they tried this for a month or two, it's not that bad an error, really; it was worth a try, based on what they knew. If they did this for decades, that would be a serious error.

themodelplumber 3y ago
> kept doing it, even though it wasn't working It was working though. It was maintaining a new state of social order, which is a mandate for sustainable power transfer in society.
Sharlin 3y ago
> If they did this for decades, that would be a serious error. Assuming they didn't get other benefits from the rituals, namely the same ones people get from more mainstream religions like social cohesion and a sense of purpose and a belief in some greater power.
gremlinunderway 3y ago
Except the cargo cult religions weren't trying to get cargo to return in any meaningful sense. It was a religious ritual like anyother. If we were watching Christian practices from the outside and not knowing any of the nuances of their beliefs we would probably interpret that "they're trying to get this guy named Jesus to return by eating crackers and wine". Feynman's speech is interesting and all but like so many similar gifted scientists who then go on to explore into other domains, they stumble into a field and ignore whole bodies of research into the philosophy and sociology of how science is produced. Thomas Kuhn had already established some solid insight into the social and organizational aspects of "scientific revolution", and showed that despite most people's ardent belief that science is somehow immune to it, there is a significant amount of social hierarchies and ritualistic beliefs that dictate what is considered "acceptable" science. Believing in science as this perfect immutable meritocracy is pretty much its own ritualistic cult, as if you can just pretend away human bias and insular beliefs by thinking really-really hard.

themodelplumber 3y ago

> kept doing it, even though it wasn't working It was working though. It was maintaining a new state of social order, which is a mandate for sustainable power transfer in society.

Sharlin 3y ago

> If they did this for decades, that would be a serious error. Assuming they didn't get other benefits from the rituals, namely the same ones people get from more mainstream religions like social cohesion and a sense of purpose and a belief in some greater power.

gremlinunderway 3y ago

Except the cargo cult religions weren't trying to get cargo to return in any meaningful sense. It was a religious ritual like anyother. If we were watching Christian practices from the outside and not knowing any of the nuances of their beliefs we would probably interpret that "they're trying to get this guy named Jesus to return by eating crackers and wine". Feynman's speech is interesting and all but like so many similar gifted scientists who then go on to explore into other domains, they stumble into a field and ignore whole bodies of research into the philosophy and sociology of how science is produced. Thomas Kuhn had already established some solid insight into the social and organizational aspects of "scientific revolution", and showed that despite most people's ardent belief that science is somehow immune to it, there is a significant amount of social hierarchies and ritualistic beliefs that dictate what is considered "acceptable" science. Believing in science as this perfect immutable meritocracy is pretty much its own ritualistic cult, as if you can just pretend away human bias and insular beliefs by thinking really-really hard.