Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cargo Cult Science (1974)

physics.brocku.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Cargo Cult Science (1974)

#21

Post by rpeden »

jimnotgym wrote: post #18

This subject is something the data science/ ML world need to take very seriously. I am constantly passed snippets of google analytics as 'proof' something on the website worked with no analysis of what else could have caused it. With pay per click you get some very sulky looks when you say 'how much of that result do you feel is caused by people clicking the ad that would have clicked the search result if the ad wasn…

Thanks for sharing; I feel the same way you do, and you've put in into words more succinctly that I could have.

In the name of accuracy, I'd just like to point out that the athlete was probably say he was "hoping to medal in the Olympics", i.e. he was using the verb form of medal. It might not be common to use it that way, but it's common enough that it probably doesn't count as jargon.

Re: Cargo Cult Science (1974)

#22

Post by jeremiep »

jimnotgym wrote: post #18

This subject is something the data science/ ML world need to take very seriously. I am constantly passed snippets of google analytics as 'proof' something on the website worked with no analysis of what else could have caused it. With pay per click you get some very sulky looks when you say 'how much of that result do you feel is caused by people clicking the ad that would have clicked the search result if the ad wasn…

This is spot on. Being able to express ideas without jargon is to me a sign of mastery. You've learned the subject so well you can convey it in layman terms. I learned the most out of computer science from talks given by such people.

I feel like its the exact same with the Agile crowd and their daily stand-ups, burn-down charts, velocity and other forms of cargo cult management. I haven't seen anyone explaining all of it without massive jargon.

Another form would be this trend of adding "awesome" to everything, ie.: "build something awesome!" While the jargon isn't advanced its still the very same lack of scientific integrity.

Re: Cargo Cult Science (1974)

#23

Post by godmodus »

quonn wrote: post #17

> 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 ot…

This.

Somewhere there was drawn a line - education for work, and education for science.

Nearly everyone think both are the same. Leading to thinking publish or perish being ok even if it's shit work.

Re: Cargo Cult Science (1974)

#24

Post by Swizec »

jimnotgym wrote: post #18

This subject is something the data science/ ML world need to take very seriously. I am constantly passed snippets of google analytics as 'proof' something on the website worked with no analysis of what else could have caused it. With pay per click you get some very sulky looks when you say 'how much of that result do you feel is caused by people clicking the ad that would have clicked the search result if the ad wasn…

A lot of this is also about understanding your audience. I will happily use jargon when talking to peers and plain language when talking to others.

The problem on the internet is when content leaks. Sometimes a piece of writing meant for peers gets shared to others and you get accused of using jargon. Or inside jokes.

In reality the problem is that at first you have a period when you're finding each other's common jargon. You think someone is a peer and you use jargon. If they seem confused, you explain.

But some people feign understanding for fear of seeming dumb. Then you are in trouble. You become the pompous ass with jargon and they learn nothing.

Maybe the answer is to never start with jargon and only upgrade if the other person turns out to be a peer.

But that often offends them if they are indeed a peer.

Re: Cargo Cult Science (1974)

#25

Post by tlow »

I believe Richard Feynman originally coined this term as he discusses its origin in his auto-biography 'Surely You Must Be Joking Mr. Feynman'.

To the Hacker News community I wanted to share a thought which is a belief that human science and human cargo cult science will always be at odds. We should not chastise the Cargo Cultists for their desire to engage in science, but rather embrace and direct their misguided initiatives. Cargo Cult Science will emerge in humanity again and again. I believe it is the duty of scientists to aid Cargo Cultists in their pursuit of true science.

Re: Cargo Cult Science (1974)

#26

Post by mr_overalls »

quonn wrote: post #17

> 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 ot…

I see this narrative about the current publish-or-perish system quite often.

How is the current system of academic incentives different from the system of a few decades ago?

Re: Cargo Cult Science (1974)

#29

Post by analog31 »

mr_overalls wrote: post #26
quonn wrote: post #17

> 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 ot…

I see this narrative about the current publish-or-perish system quite often. How is the current system of academic incentives different from the system of a few decades ago?

In my view there are a couple of factors involved. First, it's my impression that it keeps getting more and more competitive. Job security is being whittled away.

Second, we've left the century of physics and entered the century of biology. Most of what you read about, regarding the "reproducibility crisis" and so forth, has to do with the medical and behavioral sciences, which have grown in relation to the physical sciences. It's to the point where, when somebody generalizes about "science research," it's likely to be about life science, and a few of us physical scientists realize that we're an insignificant exception.

I wouldn't say that life science is better or worse than physical science, but that it introduces a new set of problems that may take a few decades to address. One difference is that the life sciences seem more dependent (for now at least) on weak statistics.

Disclosure: I'm a physicist in industry.

Re: Cargo Cult Science (1974)

#30

Post by [deleted] »

tlow wrote: post #25

I believe Richard Feynman originally coined this term as he discusses its origin in his auto-biography 'Surely You Must Be Joking Mr. Feynman'. To the Hacker News community I wanted to share a thought which is a belief that human science and human cargo cult science will always be at odds. We should not chastise the Cargo Cultists for their desire to engage in science, but rather embrace and direct their misguided in…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN