i*****s
发帖数: 4596 | 1 有一个不怎么准确的译文，不过可读性倒是不低，我把原文附在后面：
祖神来归式科学
费曼（Richard Feynman）
在中世纪，有各种类型的古怪观念，如象一块犀牛角会增强权力。后来找到一种方
法将各种观念进行分类 --- 行得通就弄明白它，行不通就取消它。尔后，这种方法
就逐步形成科学。而且它发展得很好，所以我们现在是处在科学的时代。然而使我
们很难理解的是，就在这样一个科学时代巫医怎么会存在，巫医提出的事，从没有
真正行得通 --- 或者很少行得通。
但是时至今日，我遇到不少人，他们总会和我说到飞碟（UFO），或者星相学，或者
某些神秘主义，扩大的知觉，新型意识，超感觉力，等等。我得到结论，这都不属
于科学世界。
许多人相信那些荒诞不经的事物，使得我决意研究他们为什么这样。我的好奇心促
使我去进行研究，而所涉及到的内容却使我陷入困境。居然有这么多糟粕，真使人
吃惊。首先我由研究神秘主义，神秘经验的各种思想入手。我进到隔离的试验槽，
并有过许多小时的幻觉经历，所以我知道关于神秘主义的某些东西。我还去过埃萨
伦，这里是各种思想的温床（这是一个很好的地方，你们应当去看看）。然后我变
得不知所措，没想到有这么多。
在埃萨伦，高于洋面大约30英尺的岩架上，有一些温泉大浴池。我最愉快的一种体
验就是，坐在一个浴池里，往下看波浪冲击岩滨，往上凝视清澈的蓝天。或是研究
一个漂亮的裸体姑娘，而她是悄悄出现在我这个浴池的。
有一次，我在浴池里坐下，这儿已经有一个漂亮姑娘和一个小伙子，他们似乎互不
认识。我立即开始想：“天哪！我怎么才能和这个漂亮姑娘搭讪呢？”
我正想说点什么时，小伙子突然对她说，“嗯，我是学习按摩的，我能在你身上练
习吗？”
“当然可以。”她说，他们走出了浴池，她在旁边一个按摩桌上躺下。
我自己想：“多漂亮的线条呀！想不到有那样美的体形！”他开始揉她的大脚趾。
“我想我摸到了，”他说，“我摸到一个凹痕 --- 那是脑垂体吗？”
我脱口而出，“喂，你离脑垂体还远着呢！老兄！”
他们畏惧地瞧着我 --- 我已脱了衣服 --- 并且说：“这是反射学！”
我很快闭上眼睛，显出沉思的样子。
那正是使我十分困惑的那类事情的一个例子。我也调查了超感觉力，超感觉力现象
以及尤拉.吉勒的最新狂想，吉勒鼓吹用手摩钥匙就能将它弄弯。应他的邀请，我
到他的旅社房间里，以便看看测心术和弄弯钥匙两件事的表演。测心术他没成功，
我想没有人能测出我的心意。我的儿子拿着一个钥匙，吉勒摸它，但什么事也没发
生。后来他告诉我们，在水底下会灵一些。你可以想象，我们都站在灌了水的浴缸
旁，而钥匙放在水下，他用手去摸它的情形。什么也没发生。所以我不可能研究那
种现象。
我又想，还有别的什么能使我相信呢？（后来我想到巫医，只要注意到他们的咒不
灵就容易识破。）于是我还发现了许多人相信的一些事情，就像我们对教育有某些
了解那样。有一些教阅读方法和数学方法的有名学校，如果你注意，就会看到阅读
成绩不断下降 --- 或者难以上升 --- 忽略了我们还在用同样的人在改进方法这一
事实。如同一个治不好病的巫医。他们如何知道自己的方法是一定灵验呢？另一个
例子是如何对待罪犯。用我们习惯的方法对待罪犯在减少犯罪方面显然与事无补
--- 有一些理论，但没有进展。
现在这些事仍然被说成是科学，还在研究它们。持正常见解的普通人们被这种伪科
学唬住了。对教孩子念书有些好想法的一个教师，受学校制度所迫而用其它方法教
书 --- 或者甚至于由于学校制度的愚弄，反认为她的方法必定是不好的。或一些坏
孩子的双亲，在他们的孩子受到一种或两种方法训练后，认为她的后半辈子是有罪
的，因为按照专家看来，她没做“正确的事情。”
所以我们确实应该重视那些行不通的理论以及不是科学的科学。
我认为上述教育和心理研究就是我称为祖神来归式科学的例子。在南太平洋诸岛存
在一种对祖神的膜拜。战争期间，他们看到飞机运载着很多物资着陆。战后，他们
也希望有同样的事情出现。所以他们安排了跑道，沿跑道两旁放了火堆，还造了一
个小木屋，里面坐着一个人，并放了两块木头块在头上，象耳机似的，加上竹棍当
天线 --- 似乎一个引航员在那儿 --- 他们盼望祖神显灵，等待飞机着陆。该做的
他们都做了，程序完备。看起来跟以前完全一样。但是这行不通。没有飞机着陆。
所以我将这些事称为祖神来归式科学。从表面上看，符合所有技术规则，并且遵从
科学研究的形式，但是他们丢掉了某些实质性的东西，因为飞机根本不会着陆。
当然，现在我告诉你们，他们所丢掉的是什么。这正象对南太平洋诸岛上居民解释，
他们必须怎样安排好各种事情，使得他们的部落增加财富一样困难。这可不象告诉
他们如何改进耳机的外形这样简单的事。我注意到有一个祖神来归式科学普遍忽略
的性质。那就是我们希望你们在学校学习科学都已学到的思想 --- 我们从未直接
地说这是什么，而是希望你们通过科学研究的例子来理解。现在将它揭示出来并直
接谈论它是一件有趣的事，这就是一种科学上的诚实，一种绝对诚实的科学思想原
则 --- 与崇拜祖神完全是两种极端。例如你若正在做一个实验，就应该报告说有
使之不成立的事 --- 不仅是正确的能解释你的实验结果的因素；还是你知道哪些
事已为其他某些实验所排除，直到别人是怎样做的 --- 很清楚其他人已形成的定
论，都要如实报告。
即使对你的解释可能导致怀疑的细节，也应该说出来。也就是说，要尽你之所能
--- 只要你知道有什么错误或可能的错误 --- 去解释它。譬如：如果你构成一个
理论，要广为宣传或发表它，那么你就应该记下所有与理论不符合的事实，以及与
理论相一致的事实。还有一个更微妙的问题，当你将许多概念组合在一起，构成一
个精细的理论时，你要弄清楚，在解释它所符合的事实时，不只是启发你理论思想
的那些事实，而且还有理论能进一步说明的新的实验事实。
总之，关键在于，要试图给出全部信息去帮助其他人判断你的贡献的价值；不只是
给出将人们引向某个特殊方向的信息。
例如，解释这一思想最容易的方法是将它与广告宣传相对照。昨天晚上我听到韦森
油不会渗入食物。嗯，那是真的。这不是不诚实；我正在谈论的事，不只是是否诚
实的事，而是科学的正直，是另一个水平上的诚实。应该附加到广告宣传上的事实
是，如果在某个温度下操作，油不渗进食物。在另一温度下操作，油就会渗透 ---
包括韦森油。广告宣传的内容，是不完全的事实，而我们所要弄清的正是这个差别。
从经验得知，真理终会显露。其他的实验学家将重复你的实验且判断你是错还是对。
自然界的现象会与你的理论一致或者与你的理论不一致。尽管你可能赢得某些暂时
的声望或激动，如果你不打算在这类工作中非常细心，那你就不能作为一个科学家
赢得好的信誉。正是这种诚实，这种细心，没有愚弄你。那就是祖神来归式科学研
究中很大程度上所忽略的东西。
当然，他们的许多困难是问题本身的难度，科学方法对那些事根本不适宜。应该指
出，这还不是问题的实质。困难不仅仅在于飞机不着陆，还在于为什么飞机不着陆。
从经验中我们已经学到很多对付自欺欺人事件的方法。据一个例子：密立根用油滴
下降的实验测量电子电荷，并且获得了一个我们现在知道不怎么正确的答案。因为
他取了不准确的空气粘滞度值，致使测量值有点偏离。注意一下在密立根之后，对
电子电荷的测量历史是有趣的。如果画出这些测量值与时间的函数，就会发现，
某一值比密立根的大，下一个又大一点，而再下一个又大一点，直至最后稳定为一
个较高的数值。
为什么他们没有立即发现这一较高的新数值？这段历史是科学家感到惭愧的事，因
为显然，人们是这样做这些事的：当得到一个数比密立根的数高出很多时，他们想
必定自己有什么地方错了 --- 然后就寻找一个理由去解释错误的原因。当得到一个
值与密立根值相接近时，他们就不那么费劲去找错。于是心安理得地去掉那些偏离
太多的数，就这样做下去。现今我们已经懂得了那些手法，现在没有那种弊病了。
但是，恕我直言，懂得如何不愚弄自己 --- 具有完全科学的诚实 --- 的这一段长
长的历史，就我所知，是任一特定课程都没有明确包括的内容。我们正希望你们在
潜移默化中领会到。
第一条原则在于，你不必要去愚弄自己 --- 而你们是最容易受愚弄的人。所以要特
别小心。首先是不愚弄自己，这样不去愚弄其他科学家就容易了。往后你就必然习
惯于诚实。
我还想多说一句，那对科学虽不是本质的，但我有几分相信，就是当你作为一个科
学家讲演时不应该愚弄门外汉。我不想说一个人如何糊弄他的妻子，或者如何骗他
的女朋友，或者象类似这种情况下作什么。那时，他不是以科学家的身份而是以一
个普通人的身份出现的，我们将留下那些问题由你和你的教士去解决。我所谈的是
一种特定的不作假的诚实，而且拼命指明你或许是如何地错，作为一个科学家应具
有什么样的品质。这是我们作为科学家对其他科学家和门外汉的人应有的责任感。
例如，当一个朋友与我谈到，他准备去到广播电台时，我有点惊讶。他实实在在是
研究宇宙学和天文学的，但他无法向那些人解释这方面工作的应用。“嗯！”我说，
“什么也得不到”。他说：“是的，但那样我们就得不到对研究的资助。”我认为
那是一种不诚实。如果你以一个科学家来自我介绍，就应该对外行解释你正在做什
么 --- 要是他们在那种情况下就不资助你，那也是他们的决定。
这一原则的一个例子如下：如果你想检验一个理论，或者解释某一想法，你总会以
某种方式发表它。假若仅发表一特定的结果，总可以把论点说的头头是道。但应该
发表两种结果。
在对政府提出一类建议时，那种态度也是重要的。设想一个参议员征求你的意见，
问在他的州是否应该钻一个洞；你认为这在其它州更好些。如果你不发表如此结果，
对我来讲，你就不是给予科学上的劝告。只是处于通常的习惯。因为朝政府或政治
家所喜欢的方向回答，他们就可能以此作为赞成他们的论点；反之，他们根本不发
表它。那不是提科学的建议。
另一种错误则更不科学。在康奈尔时，我经常与心理系的人们谈话。一个学生告诉
我他要做如下一个实验 --- 其他人发现，在一定条件X下，鼠会做A事。她想看一看，
如果在条件Y下做实验，这些鼠是否还是做A。所以她的方案是在条件Y下做实验，看
这些鼠是否做A。
我对她说，在实验室先重复别人的实验是必要的 --- 在条件X下去做，看是否也得
到结果A（再改变条件到Y看A是否变化。然后她会懂得，真正差别是她以为已被她掌
握了的事 。）
她为有这一新的思想而非常高兴，去见她的教授。他的回答是，不，你不能做那个，
因为这个实验别人早已做了，你是浪费时间。这发生在1947年左右，不去重复心理
学实验是那时的普遍方针，要作的仅是改变条件看看发生了什么。
今天，即使在物理学的著名领域里，也还存在着发生同样事情的危险性。听说一个
人用重氢在国家实验室的一个大加速器上做的实验，我为之震惊了。为了将他的重
氢结果与轻氢可能发生的结果比较，他用了其他人的轻氢实验所得到的数据，那数
据是在不同仪器上得到的。问他为什么这样做时，他说他没有时间在这个项目上用
这个仪器去做轻氢的实验，不会有什么新结果的（因为时间紧，实验仪器又很昂贵）。
负责这一项目的人显然急于得到新的结果，为了有利于公共关系这个目的，而得到
更多的钱保持事情继续进行。他们不惜破坏了 --- 可能是这样 --- 实验本身价值，
而它才真正是事物的目的。通常，对于那儿的实验学家，当要求他们有科学而诚实
的态度时，他们完成工作就困难了。
然而，所有心理学试验都不是这种类型。例如，有很多赶着耗子通过各种迷津等 ---
很少有明确的结果。1937年，一个姓杨的人做了一个非常有趣的实验。他有一个多
门的长走廊，让耗子全都从走廊一头的门进来，食物放在另一头的门那儿。他想试
一试，能否训练耗子进到从他赶它们出来算起的第三个门。不，耗子直接进到放过
食物的那个门。
问题是走廊建造得非常漂亮而且非常均匀，耗子怎么知道这是放过食物的门呢？显
然这个门不同于其它的门，所以他非常仔细地油漆了所有的门，使门上表面结构特
征完全相同。耗子仍旧能辨别。他想可能耗子闻到食物的味道，所以他每做一次就
用化学剂改变味道。耗子又能辨别。然后他以为耗子可能象平常人一样，能通过光
和实验室的布置来辨别。于是他蔽住走廊，而后耗子还能辨别。
最后他发现，当耗子在地板上跑时，由于地板上发出的声音使他们能辨别。于是又
将走廊铺上砂子。他一次又一次的隐匿所有可能线索，最后使耗子受到愚弄而进到
第三个门。而如果他放松改变任一条件，耗子就能辨别。
从科学观点看，那是第一流的实验。这是个关于跑的耗子的感官实验，因为它没有
隐匿住耗子真正有用的线索 --- 不是你所想象它有用的线索。这个实验还精确地得
出，为了在跑动耗子实验中细心和控制每件事，必须用的条件是什么。
我查阅了这一研究之后的历史。接着作的实验和再后一个都未引用杨先生的结论。
他们从不用他在走廊上铺砂或非常细心的任一准则。他们就以相同的老方法进行跑
动耗子的实验。既不局限于杨先生的了不起发现，也不引用他的论文，因为他没有
发现耗子的什么事情。事实上，除了不理会那些具有祖神来归式科学特征的实验以
外，他找到了为了发现耗子的事必须作的每一件事。
另一个例子是莱因先生和其他人做的超感觉力实验。因为很多人提出批评 --- 他
们也作了自我批评 --- 他们改进了技巧使效应变得越来越小，直至效应逐渐消失。
所有心灵学家都在寻找那些能够重复的实验 --- 可以重复做又能得到相同效应的
实验 --- 即使是统计意义上的。他们用一百万只耗子跑动 --- 不，这一次是人 ---
他们做了很多事并得到某种统计效应。下一次，他们又做，而得不到效应了。然后
你就发现一个人说，它与期望可重复的实验要求不相干。这是科学吗？
这个人在他辞去心灵学研究所的所长的演讲中，还讲出一个新规矩。他说下一步要
做的一件事情是，他们仅训练在可接受范围内，表明他们能获得超感觉能力的学生
--- 不把他们的时间浪费在那些仅得到偶然性结果，而又野心勃勃兴趣十足的学生
们身上。在教育中采取这样一个方针是很危险的 --- 仅教学生如何获得某一定的
结果，不是教学生如何以科学的诚实去做实验。
所以我对你们只有一个希望 --- 什么时候你有保持我所描述的那种科学诚实的自
由，什么时候你不感到为保持你在组织中的位置，或者财政资助，或者诸如此类的
事而被迫失去你的诚实，那时你就会有好运气。祝愿你们有那种自由。
（取自1974年加州理工学院学位授予典礼上的演说）
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
原文：
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. |
|
