Plus, the universe is so wild that even modern science probably doesn’t cut as deep as we think it does.
I wonder if it stems from discomfort at the admitting, even to ourselves, that there are things we don't know.
For me, it's not so much about being correct all the time, as just avoiding being wrong.
At the same time, a lot of cargo cultists are looking to relax and turn on the "just believe in something whole-hog" autopilot.
They don't even like exploring details that are interesting, because it muddies the waters around the big Belief question.
I also wonder what cancer survival rates look like if you filter people who self select out of conventional healthcare for a period of time like your example above.
1) Not use the placebo, because even though it seems to work for you, it's been scientifically shown in trials to do nothing
2) Use the placebo, because it seems to work; somehow get good results
A huge number of people will choose #1. They are extremely close to cargo cult without even realizing it.
I'd say that if there's a pos/neg polarization to cargo cult, they are on the negative side, looking for things to reject in culty ways. But whether you're consuming product or rejecting it, the same shaky mindsets apply.
This is the opposite of a placebo. A placebo is a treatment that has been scientifically shown in trials to do something even though it shouldn't. For example, taking a pill or drinking a cup of "medicine" might make your headache feel better even though the pill is just sugar and the medicine is just colored water, and just eating a spoonful of sugar or drinking the same amount of water doesn't have the same effect if you don't believe it's medicine.
We use placebos as the comparison in clinical trials precisely because placebos do something, and we want to show that taking the pill with the actual medicine does more than just taking a sugar pill does. Because of it doesn't--might as well just take the sugar pill.
Placebos do something, and if that something is beneficial then by all means take them. If I can take a sugar pill that makes me feel better I don't really care whether it's psychosomatic or pharmacological. The FDA cares, because they want to encourage real treatments and discourage quackery.
It reminds me of some other terms in my own areas of specialty, and the meaning they "properly" carry, vs. the meaning they generally carry when used by the public.
You're using known pseudo-science, magic examples.
Do you want to have real fun? Try using computer science fads or political ideologies. For every new age belief, there's an even more ridiculous one, based on the same evidence (none) and hurting people and businesses. Compared to those, crystals are harmless.
Most interestingly, these are generally weak beliefs strongly held. You'll never convince these people that they've divorced themselves from reality, and you have nearly nothing to gain from trying.
Psychologists, doctors, lawyers, sitting congresspeople, etc. This isn't something that Facebook moms have a monopoly on.
We are really bad at recognizing our own flights of fancy (and, of course, recognizing what we're really bad at).