Thinking Outside The Box Versus Knowing What’s In The Box

[Dale]

@Adnorf45, and many of the other people in this thread, are completely misunderstanding the point of the article. The article does not say that we should "discard thinking outside of the box".

It just says that researchers must understand what is already in the box before they can hope to have any useful outside of the box thoughts. The point of the article is based on a simple historical fact: no major contributions have come from someone ignorant of the contents of the box.

 

[Quarker]

It’s been 50 years since any major new developments have occurred. I don’t think there’s any doubt that modern physics exists within a cubicle universe.

 

[renormalize]

It’s been 50 years since any major new developments have occurred. I don’t think there’s any doubt that modern physics exists within a cubicle universe.

I disagree. Instead, my position is that our current understanding of fundamental physics is close enough to the "truth" that to get closer requires ever-longer time periods of effort by researchers that possess ever-broader understanding of "what's in the box". Can you demonstrate otherwise beyond "any doubt"?

 

[russ_watters]

It’s been 50 years since any major new developments have occurred. I don’t think there’s any doubt that modern physics exists within a cubicle universe.

This is a twist on what @Dale said, a fallacy that the box is a constraint or limitation and that therefore ignoring the box increases the chance of finding something new. It's not true and is just an excuse for not taking the effort to learn what's in the box.

[Even setting aside whether the premise is true.]

 

[Dale]

It’s been 50 years since any major new developments have occurred. I don’t think there’s any doubt that modern physics exists within a cubicle universe.

That is a ridiculous assertion, so I have plenty of doubt about it.

What standard are you using to determine a “major” new development? What is the theory by which duration between major developments is predicted? How does the box/cubicle factor in to that supposed theory? And if the theory is that there would have been a major development in less than 50 years were it not for the box, then how can it explain the thousands of years before Newton without major developments?

 

[DaveC426913]

6000+ exoplanets detected (1988+)
Discovery of the Higgs Boson (2012)
Accelerating Expansion of the Universe (1998/2011)
Quantum Information and Computing
Direct Imaging Black Holes (2019/2022)
High-temperature superconductivity (1987)
Quantum teleportation (1993)
Bose–Einstein condensate (1995)
Detection of Gravitational Waves (2015)*
First "image" of the Milky Way in neutrinos instead of light (2023)*

*_{This is the first time in history we have been able to observe our universe in something other than the EM spectrum.}

 

[jedishrfu]

My favorite out-of-the-box experience is the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz (1939). On several occasions, he comes up with novel solutions to problems.

The best scene was when the Winkies surrounded them, and he grabbed the tin man's axe to cut the chandelier rope, letting it crash down on the Witch’s soldiers.

Or the Apple scene where he gets the Apple trees angry, and they throw their apples at him and Dorothy.

My mother taught it was better to be clever than smart.