草包族科学（英语：Cargo cult science）出自美国物理学家理查·费曼（Richard Feynman）于1974年于加州理工学院的一场毕业典礼演说，描述某些事物貌似科学，却遗漏了“科学的品德，也就是进行科学思考时必须遵守的诚实原则”。“Cargo cult”直译为“船货崇拜”，是指一些原始部落为了吸引运输机补给，而试图建造一座外表看似机场，实际上却没有机场功能的设施，以吸引飞机降落。以下是演讲全文。

 

 

 

草包族科学

by Richard Feynman

　在中古世纪期间，各种疯狂荒谬的想法可谓层出不穷，例如犀牛角可以增进性能力，就是其中之一。随后有人发现了过滤想法的方法，试验哪些构想可行、哪些不可行，把不可行者淘汰掉。当然，这个方法逐渐发展成为科学。

　它一直发展得很好，我们今天已经进入科学时代了。事实上，我们的年代是那么的科学化，有时候甚至会觉得难以想象，以前怎么可能出现过巫医，因为他们所提出的想法全都行不通——至多只有少数的想法是行得通的。

　然而直到今天，我还是会碰到很多的人，或迟或早跟我谈到不明飞行物体、占星术，或者是某些神秘主义、扩张意识、各种新型意识。超能力等等。我因此下了一个结论：这并不是个科学的世界。

　大多数人都相信这许许多多的神奇事物，我便决定研究看看原因何在。而我喜爱追寻真理的好奇心，则把我带到困境之中，因为我发现了世上居然有这许多的废话和废物！

 

　首先，我要研究的是各种神秘主义以及神秘经验。我躺在与外界隔绝的水箱内，体验了许多个小时的幻觉，对它有些了解。然后我跑到依沙伦（Esalen），那是这类想法的温床。事先我没想到那里会有那么多怪东西，让我大吃一惊。

　依沙伦有好多巨大的温泉浴池，盖在一处离海平面30英尺高的峭壁平台上。我在依沙伦最愉快的经验之一，就是坐在这些浴池里，看着海浪打到下面的岩石上，看着无云的蓝天，以及漂亮女孩静静地出现。

　有一次我又坐在浴池里，浴池内原先就有一个漂亮的女孩以及一个好像不认识的家伙。我立刻开始想：“我应该怎样跟她搭讪呢？”

　我还在想应该说些什么，那家伙便跟她说：“呃，我在学按摩。你能让我练习吗？”

　“当然可以。”她说。他们走出浴池，她躺在附近的按摩台上。

 

　　我想：“那句开场白真绝啊！我怎么也想不到可以这样问！”他开始按摩她的大脚指头。“我可以感觉到，”

　　他说：“我感觉到凹下去的地方——那是不是脑下垂体呢？”

　　我脱口而出：“老兄，你离脑下垂体还远得很呢！”

　　我也研究过超能力现象，最近的大热门是焦勒（Uri Geller），据说他只要用手指抚摸钥匙，就能使它弯曲。

　　在他的邀请之下，我便跑到他旅馆房间内，看他表现观心术和弯曲钥匙。在观心方面他没一样表演成功，也许没有人能看穿我的心吧？而我的小孩拿着一根钥匙让他摸，什么也没有发生。然后他说他的超能力在水中比较能够施展得开；你们可以想象，我们便跟着他跑到浴室里。水龙头开着，他在水中拼命抚摸那把钥匙，什么都没有发生。于是，我根本无法研究这个现象。

　　接下来我想，我们还相信些什么？（那时候我想到巫医，想到要研究他们的真伪是多么地容易：你只要注意他们什么也弄不成就行了。）于是我去找些更多人相信的事物，例如“我们已经掌握到教学方法”等。目前虽有很多阅读方法和教学方法的提倡及研究，但只要稍为留意，便发现学生的阅读能力一路滑落——至少没怎么上升——尽管我们还在请这些人改善教学方法。这就是一种由巫医开出来的不灵药方了，这早就应该接受检讨，这些人怎么知道提出来的方法是行得通的？

　　另一个例子是如何对待罪犯，在这方面很显然我们一无进展。那里有一大堆理论，但我们的方法显然对于减少罪行完全没有帮助。

　　然而，这些事物全都以科学之名出现，我们研究它们。

　　一般民众单靠“普通常识”，恐怕会被这些假科学吓倒。

　　假如有位老师想到一些如何教她小孩阅读的好方法，教育系统却会迫使她改用别的方法——她甚至会受到教育系统的欺骗，以为自己的方法不是好方法。又例如一些坏孩子的父母在管教过孩子之后，终身无法摆脱罪恶感的阴影，只因为专家说：“这样管小孩是不对的。”

　　因此，我们实在应该好好检讨那些行不通的理论，以及检讨那些不是科学的科学。

　　上面提到的一些教育或心理学上的研究，都是属于我称之为“草包族科学”（cargo cult science）的最佳例子。大战期间在南太平洋有一些土人，看到飞机降落在地面，卸下来一包包的好东西，其中一些是送给他们的。往后他们仍然希望能发生同样的事，于是他们在同样的地点铺飞机跑道，两旁还点上了火，盖了间小茅屋，派人坐在那里，头上绑了两块木头（假装是耳机）、插了根竹子（假装是天线），以为这就等于控制塔里的领航员了——然后他们等待、等待飞机降落。他们被称为草包族，他们每件事都做对了、一切都十分神似，看来跟战时没什么两样；但这行不通：飞机始终没有降落下来。这是为什么我叫这类东西为“草包族科学”，因为它们完全学足了科学研究的外表，一切都十分神似，但是事实上它们缺乏了最重要的部分——因为飞机始终没有降落下来。

　　接下来，按道理我应该告诉你，它们缺乏的是什么，但这和向那些南太平洋小岛上的土人说明，是同样的困难。

　　你怎么能够说服他们应该怎样重整家园，自力更生地生产财富？这比“告诉他们改进耳机形状”要困难多了。不过，我还是注意到“草包族科学”的一个通病，那也是我们期望你在学校里学了这么多科学之后，已经领悟到的观念——我们从来没有公开明确地说那是什么，却希望你能从许许多多的科学研究中省悟到。因此，像现在这样公开的讨论它也是蛮有趣的。这就是“科学的品德”了，这是进行科学思考时必须遵守的诚实原则——有点尽力而为的意思在内。举个例子，如果你在做一个实验，你应该把一切可能推翻这个实验的东西纳入报告之中，而不是单把你认为对的部分提出来；你应该把其他同样可以解释你的数据的理论，某些你想到、但已透过其他实验将之剔除掉的事物等，全部包括在报告中，以使其他人明白，这些可能性都已经排除。

　　你必须交代清楚任何你知道、可能会使人怀疑的细微未节。如果你知道哪里出了问题，或可能会出问题，你必须要尽力解释清楚。比方说，你想到了一个理论，提出来的时候，便一定要同时把对这理论不利的事实也写下来。

　　这里还牵涉到一个更高层次的问题。当你把许多想法放在一起构成一个大理论，提出它与什么数据相符合时，首先你应该确定，它能说明的不单单是让你想出这套理论的数据，而是除此以外，还能够说明其他的实验数据。

　　总而言之，重点在于提供所有信息，让其他人得以裁定你究竟作出了多少贡献；而不是单单提出会引导大家偏向某种看法的资料。

　　要说明这个概念，最容易的方法是跟广告来作个对照。

　　昨天晚上我看到一个广告，说“威森食用油”（Wesson Oil）不会渗进食物里头。没有错，这个说法并不能算是不诚实，但我想指出的不单是要老实而已，这是关系到科学的品德，这是更高的层次。那个广告应该加上的说明是：在某个温度之下，任何食用油都不会渗进食物里头；而如果你用别的温度呢，所有食用油，包括威森食用油在内，都会渗进食物里头。因此他们传播的只是暗示部分，而不是事实；而我们就要分辨出其中的差别。

　　根据过往的经验，真相最后还是会有水落石出的一天。

　　其他同行会重复你的实验，找出你究竟是对还是错；大自然会同意或者不同意你的理论。而虽然你也许会得到短暂的名声及兴奋，但如果你不肯小心地从事这些工作，最后你肯定不会被尊为优秀科学家的。这种品德，这种不欺骗自己的刻苦用心，就是大部分草包族科学所缺乏的配料了。

　　它们碰到的困难，主要还是来自研究题材本身，以及根本无法将科学方法应用到这些题材上。但这不是唯一的困难。这是为什么飞机没有着陆！

　　从过往的经验，我们学到了如何应付一些自我欺骗的情况。举个例子，密立根（Robert Millikan）做了个油滴实验，量出了电子的带电量，得到一个今天我们知道是不大对的答案。他的数据有点偏差，因为他用了个不准确的空气粘滞系数数值。于是，如果你把在密立根之后、进行测量电子带电量所得到的数据整理一下，就会发现一些很有趣的现象：把这些数据跟时间画成坐标图，你会发现这个人得到的数值比密立根的数值大一点点，下一个人得到的数据又再大一点点，下一个又再大上一点点，最后，到了一个更大的数值才稳定下来。

　　为什么他们没有在一开始就发现新数值应该较高？——这件事令许多相关的科学家惭愧脸红——因为显然很多人的做事方式是：当他们获得一个比密立根数值更高的结果时，他们以为一定哪里出了错，他们会拼命寻找，并且找到了实验有错误的原因。另一方面，当他们获得的结果跟密立根的相仿时，便不会那么用心去检讨。因此，他们排除了所谓相差太大的数据，不予考虑。我们现在已经很清楚那些伎俩了，因此再也不会犯同样的毛病。

　　然而，学习如何不欺骗自己，以及如何修得科学品德等等——抱歉——并没有包括在任何课程中。我们只希望能够透过潜移默化，靠你们自己去省悟。

　　第一条守则，是不能欺骗自己——而你却是最容易被自己骗倒的人，因此必须格外小心。当你能做到不骗自己之后，你很容易也能做到不欺骗其他科学家的地步了。在那以后，你就只需要遵守像传统所说的诚实方式就可以了。

　　我还想再谈一点点东西，这对科学来说并不挺重要，却是我诚心相信的东西——那就是当你以科学家的身份讲话时，千万不要欺骗大众。我不是指当你骗了你妻子或女朋友时应该怎么办，这时你的身份不是科学家，而是个凡人，我们把这些问题留给你和你的牧师。我现在要说的是很特别、与众不同、不单只是不欺骗别人，而且还尽其所能说明你可能是错了的品德，这是你作为科学家所应有的品德；这是我们作为科学家，对其他科学家以及对非科学家，都要负起的责任。

　　让我再举个例子。有个朋友在上电台节目之前跟我聊起来，他是研究宇宙学及天文学的，而他很感困惑，不知道该如何谈论这些工作的应用。我说：“根本就没有什么应用可言。”他回答：“没错，但如果这么说，我们这类研究工作就更不受支持了。”我觉得很意外，我想那是一种不诚实。如果你以科学家的姿态出现，那么你应该向所有非科学家的大众说明你的工作——如果他们不愿意支持你的研究，那是他们的决定。

　　这个原则的另一形态是，一旦你下决心要测试一个定理，或者是说明某些观念，那么无论结果偏向哪一方，你都应该把结果发表出来。如果单发表某些结果，也许我们可以把论据粉饰得很漂亮堂皇，但事实上，我们一定要把正反结果都发表出来。

　　我认为，在提供意见给政府时，也需要同样的态度。

　　假定有位参议员问你，应不应该在他代表的州里进行某项钻井工程，而你的结论是应该在另一州进行这项工程，如果你因此不发表这项结论，对我而言，你并没有提供真正的科学意见，你只不过是被利用了。换句话说，如果你的答案刚好符合政府或政客的方向，他们就把它用在对他们有利的事情上，但是一旦出现另一种情况就不发表出来。

　　这并非提供科学意见之道！

　　其他许多错误比较接近于低品质科学的特性。我在康奈尔大学教书时，经常跟心理系的人讨论。一个学生告诉我她计划做的实验：其他人已发现，在某些条件下，比方说是X，老鼠会做某些事情A.她很好奇的是，如果她把条件转变成Y，它们还会不会做A.于是她计划在Y的情况下，看看它们还会不会做A.我告诉她说，她必须首先在实验室里重复别人做过的实验，看看在X的条件下会不会也得到结果A，然后再把条件转变成Y，看看A会不会改变。然后她才能知道其中的差异是否如她所想像的那样。

　　她很喜欢这个新构想，跑去跟教授说；但教授的回答是：“不，你不能那样做，因为那个实验已经有人做过，你在浪费时间。”这大约是1947年的事，其后那好像变成心理学的一般通则了：大家都不重复别人的实验，而单纯地改变实验条件看结果。

　　今天，同样的危险依然存在，甚至在著名的物理这一行也不例外。我很震惊地听到在国家加速器实验室完成的一个实验的情形。在实验中，这个研究人员用的是氘（一种重氢）。而当他想将这些结果跟使用轻氢的情况作一比较时，他直接采用了别人在不同仪器上得到的轻氢数据。

　　当别人问他为什么这样做时，他说这是由于他计划里没有剩余时间重复那部分的实验，而且反正也不会有新的结果……。于是，由于他们太急着要取得新数据，以取得更多的资助，让实验能继续下去，他们却很可能毁坏了实验的价值本身；而这才应该是原先的目的。很多时候，那里的实验家没法按照科学品德的要求来进行研究！

　　必须补充一句，并不是所有心理学的实验都是这个样子的。我们都知道，他们有很多老鼠走迷宫的实验，曾经有很久都没有什么明显的结论。但在1937年，一位名为杨格（Young）的人进行了一个很有趣的实验。他弄了个迷宫，里面有条很长的走廊，两边都有许多门。老鼠从这边的门走进来，而在另一边的门后是食物。他想看看能不能训练老鼠从第3道门走进去——不管原本他让老鼠从那个门走起。他发现办不到；老鼠立刻会走到原先找到食物的门。

　　那么问题是，由于走廊造得很精美，每个门看来也一样，老鼠到底是怎样认出先前到过的门？很显然这道门有点不同！于是他把门重新漆过，让每道门看来都一样。但那些老鼠还是认得最初走过的门。接着他猜想也许是食物的味道，于是每次老鼠走完一次之后，他便用化学物品把迷宫的气味改变，它们还是回到原来的门那里。他再想到，老鼠可能依靠实验室里的灯光或布置来判断方向，像人那样；于是他把走廊盖起来，但结果还是一样。

　　终于他发现，它们是靠着在路面走过时发出的声音来辨认路径的，而唯一的方法是在走廊内铺上细砂。于是他追查一个又一个的可能，直到把老鼠都难倒，最后全都要学习如何走到第三个门内。如果他放松了任何一项因素，小老鼠全都知道的。

　　从科学观点来看，那是个第一流的实验。这个实验使得老鼠走迷宫之类的实验有价值，因为它揭开了老鼠真正在利用的条件——不是你猜它在用的条件。这个实验告诉我们：你要改变那些条件，要如何小心翼翼地控制及进行老鼠走迷宫的实验。

　　我追踪了这项研究的后续发展。我发现在杨格之后的类似实验，全都没有再提到这个实验。他们从来没有在迷宫里铺上细砂或者是小心执行实验。他们走回头路，让老鼠像从前般走迷宫，全然没有注意杨格所作的伟大发现。

　　他们之所以没提起杨格的论文，只不过是因为他们认为他没有发现老鼠的什么结果。但事实上，他已经发现了你必须先做的准备，否则你休想能发现老鼠的什么结果。草包族科学通常就忽略了这种重要的实验。

　　另一个例子是超能力的实验了。就像很多人提出过的批评一样——甚至他们本身也提出过——他们改进其技巧，使得效应愈来愈少，终于全无效应了。所有研究超自然现象的心理学家，都在寻找可以重复的实验（可以再做一次而得到同样的效应），甚至只要求一个统计上的数字便好了。于是他们试验了一百万只老鼠——噢，对不起，我的意思是人——做了很多实验，取得某些统计数字，但下一次再试时，他们又没法获得那些现象了。现在甚至有人会说，期望超能力实验可以重复是种细微末节的要求。这就是科学了吗？

　　这个人原本是“超自然心理学院”的院长，而当他作退休演说时，他谈到设立新的机构，他更告诉其他人，下一步是大家应该挑选那些已明显有超能力的学生来训练，而不要浪费时间在那些对这些现象很有兴趣、却只偶然有超能力效应出现的学生。我认为这种教育政策是十分危险的——只教学生如何得到某些结果，而不是如何固守科学品德、进行实验。

　　因此我只有一个希望：你们能够找到一个地方，在那里自由自在地坚持我提到过的品德；而且不会由于要维持你在组织里的地位，或是迫于经济压力，而丧失你的品德。

　　我诚心祝福，你们能够获得这样的自由。

附录：

CARGO CULT SCIENCE 

by Richard Feynman

Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.

During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such

as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a

method was discovered for separating the ideas--which was to try

one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it.

This method became organized, of course, into science. And it

developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It

is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in

understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when

nothing that they proposed ever really worked--or very little of

it did.

But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me

into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of

mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and

so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world.

Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to

investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my

curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I

found so much junk that I'm overwhelmed. First I started out by

investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences.

I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of hallucinations,

so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a

hotbed of this kind of thought (it's a wonderful place; you should

go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn't realize how

much there was.

At Esalen there are some large baths fed by hot springs situated

on a ledge about thirty feet above the ocean. One of my most

pleasurable experiences has been to sit in one of those baths and

watch the waves crashing onto the rocky shore below, to gaze into

the clear blue sky above, and to study a beautiful nude as she

quietly appears and settles into the bath with me.

One time I sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl

sitting with a guy who didn't seem to know her. Right away I began

thinking, "Gee! How am I gonna get started talking to this

beautiful nude babe?"

I'm trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her,

I'm, uh, studying massage. Could I practice on you?"

"Sure," she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a

massage table nearby.

I think to myself, "What a nifty line! I can never think of

anything like that!" He starts to rub her big toe. "I think I feel

it, "he says. "I feel a kind of dent--is that the pituitary?"

I blurt out, "You're a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!"

They looked at me, horrified--I had blown my cover--and said, "It's

reflexology!"

I quickly closed my eyes and appeared to be meditating.

That's just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I

also looked into extrasensory perception and PSI phenomena, and the

latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able

to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his

hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both

mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that

succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key

and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it

works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing

in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and

him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was

unable to investigate that phenomenon.

But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And

I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have

been to cheek on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So

I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have

some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading

methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice,

you'll see the reading scores keep going down--or hardly going up

in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to

improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't

work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their

method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We

obviously have made no progress--lots of theory, but no progress--

in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to

handle criminals.

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I

think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by

this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to

teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it

some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into

thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent

of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels

guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right

thing," according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and

science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are

examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the

South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw

airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same

thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like

runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a

wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head

like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's

the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. 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.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing.

But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea

Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some

wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling

them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one

feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.

That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying

science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just

hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific

investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now

and speak of it explicitly. 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.

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.

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 judgment in one particular direction or

another.

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for

example, with 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 not being

dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another

level. The fact that should be added to that 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. So it's the implication which has been

conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what

we have to deal with.

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 cargo cult science.

A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of

the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the

subject.  Nevertheless it should be remarked that this is not the

only difficulty.  That's why the planes didn't land--but they don't

land.

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of

the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the

charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and

got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a

little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the

viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of

measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you

plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little

bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than

that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until

finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away?

It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because

it's apparent that people did things like this: 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. When they got a number closer to

Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated

the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.

We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that

kind of a disease.

But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves--of

having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something

that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that

I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are

the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about

that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other

scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after

that.

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science,

but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool

the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to

tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your

girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be

a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll

leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about

a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending

over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to

have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as

scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a

friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology

and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the

applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any."

He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of

this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're

representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to

the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you

under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind

to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should

always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only

publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look

good. We must publish both kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government

advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether

drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it

would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a

result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're

being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the

government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument

in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish

it at all. That's not giving scientific advice.

Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When

I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology

department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an

experiment that went something like this--it had been found by

others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A.

She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to

Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment

under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her

laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under

condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change

to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real

difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her

professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the

experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time.

This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general

policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but

only to change the conditions and see what happens.

Nowadays there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even

in the famous (?) field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an

experiment done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator

Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his

heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen"

he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light

hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why,

he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because

there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the

experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there

wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs

at NAL 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,

which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the

experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific

integrity demands.

All experiments in psychology are not of this 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 the rats to go in at 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.

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 the rats

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.

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 in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions,

the rats could tell.

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.

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 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 the 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.

Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other

people. As various people have made criticisms--and they themselves

have made criticisms of their own experiments--they improve the

techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and

smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists

are looking for some experiment that can be repeated--that you can

do again and get the same effect--statistically, even. They run a

million rats no, it's people this time they do a lot of things and

get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't

get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an

irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is

science?

This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which

he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology.

And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the

things they have to do is be sure they only train students who have

shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable extent--

not to waste their time on those ambitious and interested students

who get only chance results. It is very dangerous to have such a

policy in teaching--to teach students only how to get certain

results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific

integrity.

So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere

where 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, or financial support, or so on,

to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom