The problem is that there is nothing being corrected at all. There's only a poorly framed and distorted interpretation of the coloquial use of an expression, which is then exaggerated to serve as a basis for virtue signaling.
The blogger goes to the extent of trying to dismiss any argument that ever refers to the concept as "simply a lazy, meaningless attack". As if anyone who refers to a specific concept is automatically wrong by means of commiting a foul in a virtue signaling game.
> Note that the metaphor in cargo-cult programming is the opposite of the metaphor in cargo-cult science: Feyman's cargo-cult science has no chance of working, while cargo-cult programming works but isn't understood. Moreover, both metaphors differ from the cargo-cult metaphor in other contexts, referring to the expectation of receiving valuables without working.
So there's some justification that the meaning has escaped the metaphor and has become meaningless.
Also, it's quite ironic that arguably the term "virtue signaling" has itself become a lazy, meaningless attack- a cargo cult, in other words. Claims of virtue signaling - both as a rhetorical activity, and as an insult devised to shut down discourse- are both cargo cults.
> (...) Feyman's cargo-cult science has no chance of working, while cargo-cult programming works but isn't understood.
Cargo-cult science does not work because by "work" it would need to involve causality, which it doesn't.
This is not the same as the cargo-cult mentality referred to in tech circles. That refers only to the belief that the performative aspect correlated to an expected outcome is actually the cause, whereas it's at best a correlation. People build landing strips expecting cargo planes to drop off riches. People use a specific project tree layout expecting the project to work. People use a programming language expecting their code to be memory safe and vulnerability-free. People use a container orchestration service expecting their system to be highly scalable and resilient. People use a framework expecting their system to be high performance and efficient.
You'll see claims that "this app runs on Kubernetes, thus is very resilient and highly scalable". Cargo cult mentality.
Do you understand why the "lazy, meaningless attack" remark makes absolutely no sense when actually considering the concept?
There is no justification. There's only a straw man based on, at best, a gross failure to understand the very basis of concept that's being criticized.
Not to mention that since "cargo cult engineering" badly misstates what cargo cults were, it's not even a good metaphor! You need to have two different definitions of "cargo cult": the real life one, and Feynman's childish fairy tale. Just say something else!
I will add that the frog thing is also a terrible metaphor! Since frogs don't actually behave this way, saying "these people are like frogs in a boiling pot" is tantamount to saying "these people are intelligent enough to leave when the situation gets bad." Again you have to use two different mental models: actual frogs, and a childish fairy tale. And note what happens if someone hasn't heard the boiling frogs thing: they are told the lie as if it were true. Just like with cargo cults - everyone hears Feynman first, and only later do a small segment learn that Feynman was wrong. These "metaphors" spread ignorance, and it's completely avoidable. We are grown adults and we can simply phrase our points in different ways. We don't have to rely on idiotic stories and lying to each other.
I'm not sure you and I even have the same understanding of the term., since I wouldn't have said it was equivalent to snake oil or alchemy. My interpretation is that it relates to trying to reproduce success by mimicking some (apparent) cause, while in fact not understanding the underlying mechanism, and hence failing.
If you distilled the Feynman story into something like this:
"There was a society inhabiting a remote island, who had little or no contact with the outside world. At some point a much larger and richer society sets up an airstrip on the island and gathers supplies. They share these supplies with the locals and due to the relative wealth disparity it is a significant improvement to their quality of life. The foreigners eventually leave and the supplies stop, and so the locals try to replicate the prior conditions. This makes sense, but since they have relatively little knowledge of aircraft or geopolitics the only information they have to work with is what they saw at the airstrip. Their efforts are doomed because they lack the requisite deeper understanding."
Now you and I know that this is a gross simplification and neglects a religious aspect, the anthropology-goggles of whoever reported the effects in the west, the many disparate groups that have been labelled "cargo cults" in recent history, the local economic and social conditions, etc. I think a reasonable person can understand that it's just a little fable inspired by genuine events, and that it serves to illustrate an idea. It shouldn't be used to make a judgement about the people involved or global conflict or human nature, except as a small piece taken with all the relevant historiographical context.
Stories like these are IMHO an effective way to spread and label ideas, so that if my PHB buys ping pong tables because he wants to have a share price like Google's then I can say "cargo cult" rather than explaining the whole concept, because I understand that my colleagues will know what I'm referring to.
I applaud your effort to stand up for people you feel are being unfairly maligned, but I think that you can use the metaphor without lying or promoting ignorance.