Cargo Cult Science (Caltech commencement address, 1974)

Richard Feynman · c. 1974

The piece opens with

Details that could throw doubt on an interpretation must be given

Their wordsDetails that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.

Read the piece on calteches.library.caltech.edu ↗

Richard Feynman did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
Details that could throw doubt on an interpretation must be given

Their wordsDetails that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.
Our reading
Whoever puts out a theory must also report all the facts that disagree with it

Their wordsIf 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.
Our reading
Scientists should give all the information others need to judge their work, not just what points one way

Their wordsIn 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.
Our reading
Scientists must above all not fool themselves, and they are the easiest people to fool

Their wordsThe 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.
Our reading
Scientific integrity means bending over backwards to show how one may be wrong

Their wordsI’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist.
Our reading
A scientist should explain to laymen what they are doing, even if that costs public support

Their wordsIf 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.
Our reading
Teaching students only how to get certain results, not how to experiment with integrity, is very dangerous

Their wordsIt 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.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.