Talk:Cargo cult science

Definition

This entry has a lead-in but no pay off! The reader needs to know what defines cargo-cult science well enough to identify in operation on his own. Wetman 10:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article grossly misrepresents actual 'cargo cults'

There has been extensive anthropological literature on the so-called 'cargo cults' (terminology now generally avoided in the literature) written over the years, all of which, without exception, present a very different perspective than the trivialising and frankly offensive characterisations presented in this article. Wikipedia should not be representing Feynman's tale about the 'primitive other' as if it is anything more than just that - a cherry-picked nugget, told for effect, entirely stripped of the political, economic, social, and religious contexts that reveal a much more nuanced process focussed around reactions to colonialism and rapid social change. I have much respect for Feynman in other ways, but as far as I'm aware, he had no anthropological qualifications whatsoever, and it shows. If we are to have an article on this questionable metaphor at all, it needs to do better than this. Much better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been uncomfortable with the term myself for quite some time. But it's hard to back up this particular topic without the racially biased term, because all the sources use that version of it. I'd hoped someone would've come up with a better term by now, but haven't seen any examples. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

My particular issue isn't so much about documenting a 'racially biased term', as it is about misrepresenting it as based on fact. If Wikipedia wants to discuss terminology originating in anthropology (or at least coming to public attention as a consequence of that disciplines' analysis), it should do so based on what anthropologists have actually had to say about the subject. Not physicists looking for convenient metaphors to point out the flaws of those they work amongst. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see my suggestion at the WP:YWAB Talk page. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I have done a lot more research on this. AndyTheGrump is correct. I say we remove every hint that cargo cults are anything like what Feynman described, while acknowledging that the pseudoscientific method of research he describes definitely exists, even though it is named after something that doesn't. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Ideally, we need a source or two actually discussing Feynman's errors directly, but I've not seen any, and without that, we might be accused of WP:OR if we do so ourselves. It might possibly need careful wording to avoid technical violations of WP:OR policy, but frankly, I'd say we'd be well into legitimate WP:IAR territory to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is not protected and, from the outside, this doesn't seem complicated nor worth pounding the table. In describing cargo cults, Feynman would have been informed by contemporary sources. The article can give examples of those sources, and then state that they have been reconsidered. 2601:642:4600:BE10:3857:E634:4B5F:674C (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we cannot state either that 'Feynman would have been informed by contemporary sources', or that such sources have been 'reconsidered'. The academic sources available at the time (and from decades previously, e.g. Peter Worsley's 1957 The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of 'Cargo Cults' in Melanesia) wouldn't remotely have supported Feynman's erroneous trivialisations, and such reconsideration as there has been since is mostly concerned with expanding the depth of analysis, and in questioning whether it may have been misleading to lump a whole lot of disparate events taking place over a wide area over a considerable period as a single phenomenon for such analysis. What Feynman said in 1974 was simply wrong, or at least utterly distorted for rhetorical purposes, and we don't have any means to ascertain where he got it from. He clearly arrived at it after reading something from somewhere, but we don't engage in speculation as to how he came to say what he said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, the article's not protected. Rather than pounding about how inaccurate Feynman's description was — was it really, taking the John Frum movement as a point of reference, as the article already does? – you can do something about it. 2601:642:4600:BE10:3857:E634:4B5F:674C (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I aw well aware of the protection status of the article. I am also aware of Wikipedia policy, which requires content to be sourced. If we had sources telling us where Feynman got his ideas from, we could use them. We don't. And we don't engage in synthesis to draw our own conclusions on such matters. Which is why this whole thing is problematic. If it was a simple matter of using available sources to correct the problem, I would have done so. As for the John Frum movement, if it ever was a 'cargo cult', it was always atypical, and by the time Feynman would have heard about it, had largely transformed itself into a conventional political organisation, with what might rather cynically be described as a sideline in ritual engaged in at least partly to keep the tourists happy. Perhaps Feynman saw some 'documentary' portraying this, and took it at face value. We'll probably never know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you dispute the article as it now stands? 2601:642:4600:BE10:3857:E634:4B5F:674C (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

As you have edited it, yes. [1] Your statement "In describing the phenomenon, Feynman drew an analogy to certain sympathetic magic practices among colonized peoples, that imitated the appearance of the colonizers' technology without the substance" is entirely unsourced. And, with regard to the so-called 'cargo cults' that Feynman inaccurately described, quite clearly misleading, if not just plain wrong. You seem to be perpetuating the same errors that Feynman did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Suggest replacing "Feynman drew an analogy to certain..." with ""Feynman drew an analogy to what he believed were certain..." and replacing "that imitated" with "that supposedly imitated".

I would also add the following after the second paragraph: "This use of the phrase "Cargo Cult" in popular culture is based on a misconception, and not upon the well-documented beliefs of the indigenous Melanesian belief system of the same name."

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Your first proposal seems spot on. I think the second needs more work: "This use of the phrase "Cargo Cult" in popular culture is based on a misconception, and not upon the well-documented beliefs and practices of Melanesian movements sometimes given that name" is probably clearer, and gets the point across about the phrase 'cargo cult' being (originally at least) an outsiders' label, and a problematic one at that. I'll think on this some more though, as it could likely be improved further. Making this a general statement about (non-Melanesian) popular culture is a very good idea though, since it avoids having to make unsourced claims about Feynman in particular. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The source for Feynman drawing the analogy is his own published remarks, and I do not see how it is inaccurate to say that Melanesians engaged in sympathetic magic to bring them cargo. Calling a practice "magical" is not "otherizing" in general, nor specifically in this context, where the whole point was to criticize abuses of science. Nor is there any obligation to put a disclaimer that the practices Feynman described were not representative of all Melanesian practice, because he didn't say they were and nobody ever speaks all-inclusively about anything.

Besides that, Andy, it sounds like you have settled on your own distinction of which relevant sources are flawed and which are not, and I can hardly guess which ones will meet your approval.2601:642:4600:BE10:3857:E634:4B5F:674C (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You have no source for 'sympathetic magic'. And 'bring them cargo' is a ridiculous trivialisation of what was actually going on. We go by sources - and for this, we have the best sources available, the anthropological studies that brought the 'cargo cults' to popular attention in the first place. Studies which are ongoing. Studies which make it abundantly clear that the movements were never centred around acquiring western 'cargo' by 'magic' anyway. If you want to participate usefully in this discussion, I suggest you start by reading a few of of the sources. Some are hard going, but they have to be. They are describing a complex interaction between two very different worldviews, in a context of rapid social change and grossly uneven distribution of political and economic power. Dismissing the indigenous reaction to this as 'magic' isn't just trivialising, it is downright offensive. We don't do that with our own history, and we shouldn't do it with other peoples. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: "Melanesians engaged in sympathetic magic to bring them cargo", do you have a source for that? I believed it for decades because I had heard it from multiple popular culture sources and had never head anyone question it. But once the question was raised, I looked into it and found that pretty much everyone who has actually studied the so-called cargo cultists has concluded that the whole story was bullshit. Which is a shame because software engineers do it all the time. Do your own research. For what it is worth, my search found these sources:

• https://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/cargo-cults
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/40331760
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv9zcktq.7

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• This kind of issues is what makes me think that this article should be about Feynman speech and not about Cargo cult science, I do not think the later is even a thing on its own.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The article certainly presents little in the way of evidence that 'cargo cult science' is actually a useful term for describing anything specific. One can no doubt find endless examples of the phrase being used, but in terms of any sort of formal definition, or in-depth analysis, nothing of note. We seem to be stuck with Feynman's poor analogy, used mostly as an insult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Having read the anthropological encyclopedia entry, I have to agree that what "cargo cults" actually were is little like what Feynman's description of them is. Given the lack of sources about the topic "Cargo cult science" other than Feynman's own writings, I would support either redirecting the article to Feynman or taking the article to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I think a merge, even if very little of the existing prose is retained in the target article, is a better option than proposing deletion at AfD. Personally I am unconvinced on whether there is enough coverage of the term for a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article about Feynman's phrase, but that's something we can discuss in the merge proposal. VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposal to selectively merge this article into Richard Feynman. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging users from previous WP:MERGE attempt at Talk:Pseudoscience#Merge_proposal_Cargo_cult_science: @XOR'easter, DVdm, WhatamIdoing, Jähmefyysikko, Teratornis, Cactus Ronin, and VQuakr:--ReyHahn (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Polling

• Support Per my previous comments in this discussion. There's just not enough good sourcing to write a coherent independent article about this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No opposition to the alternative of merging to Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support for merge with Richard Feynman or with Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! : Per my previous WP:Merge attempt. The topic has no concise definition. Most of the times when it is used in Wikipedia is related to Feynman (at least only 1 out of 7).--ReyHahn (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support merging into and redirect to section Richard Feynman#Cargo cult science. - DVdm (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support merging to Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! as suggested by ReyHahn. I oppose merging to Richard Feynman, as I do not think any expansion of coverge of this speech/book chapter is due in the main biographical article. @Hemiauchenia and DVdm: would you be willing to express support or opposition to this alternate merge target? VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be any expansion, the "selective merge" could just be a redirect, but I have no opposition to merging it into the book. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: No problem with me, anything goes, as long as it is not merged into Pseudoscience as was once suggested. - DVdm (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Merging with the Feynman biography (or the book, though the biography seems better in my opinion) book would appear an appropriate solution, as long as we take care to avoid the same issues we have here with presenting Feynman's description of 'cargo cults' as factual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support merge to SYJ as this appears to be nothing more than Feynman's colorful description of confirmation bias within the context of scientific experiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4600:BE10:5CF7:2992:48CD:8A1B (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support merging to Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! No opinion on merging to Richard Feynman. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support merge to Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! as a better target. The Feynman article is a featured article that wouldn't benefit from anything copied over from this article, and it already mentions this topic.—Alalch E. 08:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support merge to Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! as a natural target, since it is and can be discussed there in more length than what is possible in the biographical article. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support merge to "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" as a natural target. (...and never mind better document security, just keep Feynman away from your file cabinet!) Just plain Bill (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Snowball Clause?

• Bad WP:PROPMERGE. Proposed merge discussions are held on the target article's talk page. This is needed to be able to form a consensus about the state of the target page after merger. Further, the lack of clarity and agreement about the target, due to the discusssion not being held on the target's talk page, may hinder consensus forming and cause confusion. (If the proposal is to merge X to Y and you oppose merging X to Y and support merging X to Z, that's not a "support" !vote but an "oppose" !vote.) Proposing a merger is not congruous with I don't think there needs to be any expansion, the "selective merge" could just be a redirect. Whether and what content will be merged is something to be decided at Talk:Richard Feynman—how will that article (which is a featured article by the way) benefit from the added content?
  Editors at the target article have not even been notified of this discussion on its talk page.
  This discussion should be moved to Talk:Richard Feynman, and this is why I am seeking admin help (it can be literally copypasted there, or closed here and quoted there).
  If the responding adminsitrator declines, just ignore this comment.—Alalch E. 21:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't read WP:MERGE properly, it gives an exception for If a discussion exists already, do not move it (for example, having a discussion on the source page is acceptable). There is no need to move the discussion now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: You're right. Sorry about that. How about a WP:MUTUAL for this section (the break and everyrhing under it up to and including this reply)?—Alalch E. 08:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment': the results is unanimous maybe this move could be closed per WP:SNOW.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's been one day, we can let it run longer to see if any dissenters pop up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. It is easier to do it by the book than to discuss procedural mistakes afterwards. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  A week has passed with no further discussion. WP:SNOW? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it’s enough time and the consensus is clear. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think anyone is free to implement the merge to the book. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)