I've often used "cargo cults" as a way to categorize stupid ritualistic things about the world I didn't like, but it's good to be reminded that the world isn't so two dimensional.
The idea is sound, but don't assume you understand the members enough to do a good job.
>> I think a better example of a cargo cult than bad science is climate change denial. The followers see the potential loss of "cargo" in the form of their current way of life as a problem and the leaders apply the skills that brought them success in politics to that problem. Someone good at reading legal documents is going to think that there is something wrong with scientific papers.
Specifically: "The followers see..." - it is not known what climate change "deniers" believe - rather, people tell each other stories about what they believe, and believe these stories to be true. Some humans are currently smart enough to realize that this behavior is flawed in certain scenarios (race/gender/etc stereotypes), but when it comes to ~political stereotyping the mind (and mainstream "right thinking" culture/media/etc) will defend the delusional practice to the death.
Typically these topic are argued primarily using memes (Gish Gallop, Whataboutism, Brandolini's Law, etc) and rhetoric (rendering it not possible for a strict logical perspective to "win"), with some stats and studies included to give the appearance of objectivity, permanently locking humans into this ~conceptual Overton Window.
If humans could analyze and evaluate the system we are embedded in with the same emotional/psychological detachment we analyze computer systems with it would be a big improvement, but I do not see it happening anytime soon.
More than one capital-A style agile consultants have told me that they don't really believe their scripture but the job pays well.
I can believe that. I work with Kubernetes-shaped objects, and the rituals we go through can not in any way be technically motivated. But there are conferences held and new software written so who cares, really. Nobody really needs this stuff and we all know it.
You just described modern US politics.
As with any and all human institutions, even those started with the best of intentions, it is surely just a matter of time before money and power corrupt and bend whatever-it-is to server money and power.
It seems like we have entered the explanation phase where reasons are discovered where the stupid and pointless thing actually had some minimal benefit that in no way was worth the effort expended.
I think this is generally a good sign as it means the pain from the event is fading and so people can reflect on it in sort of silly and absurd ways.
And it's in many places, if not everywhere. People mock the Polynesians for engaging in a Cargo Cult but they don't realize that most countries do that in more "sophisticated" ways.
Think about the big infrastructure projects that some "dictators" do in some countries. It would make more sense for the dictator to just pocket the money, or distribute it equally if he wants to give it up. But these projects and their prevalence suggests another dynamic at play here.
I mean, ultimately infrastructure is an investment. Now, it might be a _bad_ investment; some infra projects don’t make sense. But there’s a fairly obvious reason to do them, and even in totalitarian countries many are good investments.
I think a better example of a cargo cult than bad science is climate change denial. The followers see the potential loss of "cargo" in the form of their current way of life as a problem and the leaders apply the skills that brought them success in politics to that problem. Someone good at reading legal documents is going to think that there is something wrong with scientific papers.
A climate change denial group in the UK [1] rented office space from one of the scientific institutions that used to meet in Carlton House Terrace. The GWPF held meetings where they could talk in a sciency way even though they were not reporting any real science that they had done themselves.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foun...
Basically the gist as I understood it is that when Christian colonial missionaries arrived on Tanna Island, they banned all the local religious practices and quickly established themselves as the sole administrator and authority on the island (giving out harsh discipline and torture basically to maintain this power).
Once WWII comes around, all the missionaries fled, and soon the Americans arrived bringing with them cargo and gear and importantly, employment and autonomy. Locals were used as couriers and carried supplies in support of the Americans, and in return were given "goods" that were to them simply unheard of before.
When the Americans left, the colonial missionaries returned, but because so many people gained this autonomy and ability to practice their former religious ideas, this "cargo cult" formed which essentially was formed by anyone who refused to partake in the Christian authoritarianism that was running the island. People joined simply because it allowed them to have freedom and autonomy and the movement basically fused previous religious practices with these rituals that the Americans brought.
The "dream" for John Frum (i.e. the Americans) to return really meant a dream for independence and the Christian missionaries to leave.
That said, I thoroughly agree with your last paragraph.
While there are legitimate concerns about the scientific method being too strict, I think it's necessary to help us keep faith in a field. That's why I dislike fields that lean into methodological anarchy, like critical theory. They really have no business claiming any sort of authority.
> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
The logical conclusion of that is the Gish Gallop:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
> The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.[1][2]
Even if it's a moderated debate where an outright gallop isn't allowed, it's still easier for the dishonest party to erect a strawman claim than it is for the honest one to carefully rebut it, especially if the dishonest claim is so far into wackyland it's Not Even Wrong and requires a lot of its assumed premises to be demolished first.
> While there are legitimate concerns about the scientific method being too strict, I think it's necessary to help us keep faith in a field.
Important phrase: "keep faith in" - faith is always in play (it is fundamental to culture & consciousness), and it is healthy for the institution of science to acknowledge it imho.
> That's why I dislike fields that lean into methodological anarchy, like critical theory. They really have no business claiming any sort of authority.
Might this be an instance of "You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like {the field} got conclusively btfo"?
You are discussing your opinion/interpretation of critical theory, necessarily, but it would be very easy for readers (or even yourself) to form a belief (which is typically perceived as knowledge) that your subjective evaluation is objective and accurate.
Science and its methodologies are excellent for figuring out the physical realm, but watch out if you apply these methods to the metaphysical realm.
Science does rest on unfalsifiable foundations, but this isn't productive to discuss. I'm talking about the faith that scientists aren't making stuff up given the reasonable foundations we all already agree on.
> Might this be an instance of "You only need to lie about or misrepresent a few facts to undermine a whole field, and to an outside observer it looks like {the field} got conclusively btfo"?
I don't think so. If you accept my premise that authoritative fields should be held to strict and conservative scientific standards, then critical theory is categorically ruled out by it's own definition. Yet people dress it up as if it were strict and conservative field, like a cargo cult.
> You are discussing your opinion/interpretation of critical theory, necessarily, but it would be very easy for readers (or even yourself) to form a belief (which is typically perceived as knowledge) that your subjective evaluation is objective and accurate.
I think I made my premises clear, but I dislike the suggestion that they are merely my opinions. Most people actually share my views, but are willing to pick and choose when they apply them.
> Science and its methodologies are excellent for figuring out the physical realm, but watch out if you apply these methods to the metaphysical realm.
I'm not applying science to critical theory. My issue with critical theory is it's methods.
How could you possibly know such a thing? What does "not productive" even mean in this context?
> I'm talking about the faith that scientists aren't making stuff up given the reasonable foundations we all already agree on.
Ya, me too - is it not weird that those who subscribe to science because it "does not" deal in faith do so based on faith?
> I don't think so. If you accept my premise that authoritative fields should be held to strict and conservative scientific standards, then critical theory is categorically ruled out by it's own definition. Yet people dress it up as if it were strict and conservative field, like a cargo cult.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"
See also: Meme Magic.
>> You are discussing your opinion/interpretation of critical theory, necessarily, but it would be very easy for readers (or even yourself) to form a belief (which is typically perceived as knowledge) that your subjective evaluation is objective and accurate.
> I think I made my premises clear, but I dislike the suggestion that they are merely my opinions.
Where did this word "merely" come from?
> Most people actually share my views, but are willing to pick and choose when they apply them.
You have no means of knowing what all people believe.
> I'm not applying science to critical theory.
What about: "If you accept my premise that authoritative fields should be held to strict and conservative scientific standards"?
> My issue with critical theory is it's methods.
Technically: your impression/model of its methods.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye%E2%80%93Ken_Ham_debat...
Sometimes people now claim that "cargo cult science" is not really a good analogy and should be abandoned.
However, I think this newer understanding of cargo cults may actually make it an even better analogy.
Even if a line of scientific ideas is mostly fake and its research practices can't possibly lead to truth, participating in this ritual of fake research, giving talks about it, and other science-shaped activities, still does bind the participants together. It lends prestige to the leaders of the field. It gives everyone a way to coordinate politically around securing funding and legitimacy from higher powers for their fake research area. And we've seen you really can keep a field going this way for a very long time even if the planes never land.