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

[Greg Bernhardt]

Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles.

Someone who shows interest in science is initially a welcome development. So are fresh ideas from unexpected quarters. In contrast, there is a scientific community that is meticulously organized down to the last detail, allowing little to no external influence. With the invention of social media and other sites on the internet competing for content, unprecedented opportunities have opened up for everyone to make ideas and theories accessible to a broad public....

https://www.physicsforums.com/insig...side-the-box-versus-knowing-whats-in-the-box/

written by @fresh_42

 

[fresh_42]

I have to admit that I was lazy and didn't attach a list of references. Many citations are from various Wikipedia pages, either English or German ones (which I translated), but also from original papers (Planck, Noether, Einstein). We live in modern times, so I have all these papers on my hard drive. Means: I didn't want to trace back to the internet sites I found them on. However, when someone is interested in the original papers, I can provide the links here.

 

[Myroslav Mokhammad A]

I don't understood your post. Can you explain a bit more?

Regards,
Myroslav Mokhammad Abdeljawwad

 

[fresh_42]

I don't understood your post. Can you explain a bit more?

Regards,
Myroslav Mokhammad Abdeljawwad

The article, or was it that I didn't attach references from the files I downloaded?

 

[symbolipoint]

Of post #1 and the link---
Much too long to read.

Do you have a conclusion you want to share? Maybe another way to express a concept? An example to come from the long article in the hyperlink?

Some people collect data maybe even by observing the raw data themselves and then treat according to Statistics. When "Statistics" is used, some people often do not know 'what is the box, really' .

 

[fresh_42]

I'm not sure I understood you correctly. The article is a historical perspective of the, in my mind, biggest turning points in physics.

The résumé is that the only cases where independent research led to a significant result that I could find were Archimedes and Galois. Archimedes, because there was little known at all at his time, and Galois, who didn't publish himself and died way too young to determine how independent he really was.

But whenever you look into the details, you will find a sequence of results on which the groundbreaking ones were based. None of the great achievements has been a solitary result. The scientists were all part of academic circles one way or another. Independent research does not work.

 

[ShadowKraz]

Of post #1 and the link---
Much too long to read.

Do you have a conclusion you want to share? Maybe another way to express a concept? An example to come from the long article in the hyperlink?

Some people collect data maybe even by observing the raw data themselves and then treat according to Statistics. When "Statistics" is used, some people often do not know 'what is the box, really' .

That article was a long read? Well, summed up: the vast majority of scientific (and other) breakthroughs are the result of many people exchanging information, thoughts, and theories they have researched and worked out. The person(s) who make the breakthroughs are building upon the work of others with an added insight of their own, a realization of the connections between their predecessors' work. There are very, very few examples of someone working in complete isolation with zero knowledge or training making a breakthrough.

 

[ShadowKraz]

I don't understood your post. Can you explain a bit more?

Regards,
Myroslav Mokhammad Abdeljawwad

Responses #6 (from fresh_42) and #7 (mine) might help.

 

[Swamp Thing]

There are very, very few examples of someone working in complete isolation with zero knowledge or training making a breakthrough.

If Archimedes and Galois can make the list, then maybe so can someone who is generally in contact with the scientific zeitgeist around the discipline of their breakthrough, rather than growing up on a pre-contact intellectual island. In that case, how about Janos Bolyai and Ramanujan?

 

[fresh_42]

If Archimedes and Galois can make the list, ...

Archimedes had an empty field to cultivate. Galois had one idea for a very narrow problem. He would have been forgotten if it weren't for those who helped him:

The Academy [Académie des sciences de l’Institut de France, ed.] rejected the manuscript but encouraged Galois to submit an improved and expanded version. This process was repeated twice, with the participation of Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Joseph Fourier, and Siméon Denis Poisson.

... then maybe so can someone who is generally in contact with the scientific zeitgeist around the discipline of their breakthrough, ...

This is insufficient. He needs access to what is already in the box, i.e., a large scientific library. Otherwise, how should he know what had already been rebutted, and what criteria were necessary to count as a new theory?

... rather than growing up on a pre-contact intellectual island. In that case, how about Janos Bolyai and Ramanujan?

Ramanujan, who was extraordinarily gifted, shares the same fate as Galois. We never would have known him if there hadn't been Hardy.

János Bolyai came from the noble Bell family, a branch of the Kerpen noble family. He was the son of Farkas Bolyai, a professor of mathematics.
...
Bolyai successfully completed his engineering studies in 1822 and then devoted himself to scientific studies for a year.

This is hardly independent, the more so as Gauß was a friend and fellow student of his father.

 

[ShadowKraz]

If Archimedes and Galois can make the list, then maybe so can someone who is generally in contact with the scientific zeitgeist around the discipline of their breakthrough, rather than growing up on a pre-contact intellectual island. In that case, how about Janos Bolyai and Ramanujan?

See fresh_42's reply (#10). BUT the point is well made otherwise. I am quite certain that there have been times when a scientist (historian, writer, painter, etc) has had a friend, acquaintance, or random stranger with little knowledge in the field say something that set the light bulb off, so to speak. Inspiration and insight can be sparked by the slightest things that have little if anything to do with the field in question.

 

[Isabella Hope]

oth matter, but in different ways.
Thinking outside the box helps you find creative solutions you wouldn’t normally consider.
But knowing what’s inside the box the fundamentals, the rules, the limitations gives your creativity structure.
Real problem-solving usually happens when both work together.

 

[berkeman]

oth matter, but in different ways.

Sorry, what does oth mean?

Thinking outside the box helps you find creative solutions you wouldn’t normally consider.
But knowing what’s inside the box the fundamentals, the rules, the limitations gives your creativity structure.
Real problem-solving usually happens when both work together.

Creative thinking can involve both, but modulo the fundamental laws that we understand. Like the conservation of momentum and the fundamental laws of Thermodynamics. I use the term "non-existence proof" in my brainstorming, which means that I brainstorm lots of creative ideas in my technical work, but I always keep in mind the fundamental laws of physics, so that I can quickly eliminate options that will obviously not work. That's how I've arrived at my best patents, which have made good money for my employers and myself.

 

[Sam Six]

As someone coming from systems thinking rather than physics, I find this distinction interesting.
In complex systems work, ‘thinking outside the box’ is only useful after you first understand the structure of the box, otherwise you’re just drifting. At the same time, some of the most valuable ideas in any field came from people who, for one reason or another, saw the box differently.

My impression is that in theoretical physics the mathematics is the box, it defines the constraints, the allowable moves, and even the kinds of intuition that make sense. So for someone outside the field, the challenge is not avoiding the box, but learning enough of its architecture to ask sensible questions.

To me, both perspectives seem necessary:
• the rigor that keeps ideas grounded, and
• the conceptual flexibility that allows new angles to emerge.

From the outside, it’s interesting to observe how tightly those two roles interlock here.

 

[ShadowKraz]

Sorry, what does oth mean?


Creative thinking can involve both, but modulo the fundamental laws that we understand. Like the conservation of momentum and the fundamental laws of Thermodynamics. I use the term "non-existence proof" in my brainstorming, which means that I brainstorm lots of creative ideas in my technical work, but I always keep in mind the fundamental laws of physics, so that I can quickly eliminate options that will obviously not work. That's how I've arrived at my best patents, which have made good money for my employers and myself.

It was supposed to be "Both" and combined with the rest of her post, I'd say you are oth, sorry, both in agreement, just from differing directions. Obviously a solution has to fit in with the laws of physics or it simply won't work. But a solution that doesn't break new ground is merely a patch, not a true fix.

 

[berkeman]

It was supposed to be "Both"

Ohhh! Thanks. I thought it was some new-fangled text speak thing. LOL

 

[DaveC426913]

 

[ShadowKraz]

Ohhh! Thanks. I thought it was some new-fangled text speak thing. LOL

No problem. I totally understand your confusion. It took me a couple of months to realize what 'FWIW' meant.

 

[Esim Can]

The problem with boxes are, that they also become a hermetically closed prison. A human being is not a computer, who can erase something once learned. That is the problem. It is very difficult to forget something, once accepted as true. That is why a box emerges at first. In physics and other difficult fields, math, medicine or other.. the specialization goes (has to go) so far, that a cardiologist has not much knowledge about neurology and in physics it is a bit similar. No one can know, understand everything in a field. Most then specialize, because it is the traditional way to go. It has some benefits but also.. however. I do not share the view, that someone, who wants to think outside the box must know, what is inside the box. My argument is, if you know too much of, what is in the box, you are already trapped inside it. It is then very difficult to be open again. The innocence is lost.

 

[DaveC426913]

My argument is, if you know too much of, what is in the box, you are already trapped inside it.

Why? I am not going to make much strides in solving the Collatz Conjecture by keeping myself innocent of the good work that's come before.

Innocence is great, but I am pretty confident that few physics or math discoveries have sprouted from innocence in the absense of a deep understanding of the phenomenon (and, usually, the math).

 

[ShadowKraz]

The problem with boxes are, that they also become a hermetically closed prison. A human being is not a computer, who can erase something once learned. That is the problem. It is very difficult to forget something, once accepted as true. That is why a box emerges at first. In physics and other difficult fields, math, medicine or other.. the specialization goes (has to go) so far, that a cardiologist has not much knowledge about neurology and in physics it is a bit similar. No one can know, understand everything in a field. Most then specialize, because it is the traditional way to go. It has some benefits but also.. however. I do not share the view, that someone, who wants to think outside the box must know, what is inside the box. My argument is, if you know too much of, what is in the box, you are already trapped inside it. It is then very difficult to be open again. The innocence is lost.

This is precisely why I like differing viewpoints no matter the forum. I know I have biases and pre-conceptions and am intellectually honest enough to act on correcting them via other people's viewpoints and knowledge. I don't like boxes and labels, they grossly inhibit critical thinking.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't like boxes and labels, they grossly inhibit critical thinking.

Sure, boxless thinking is fun - for us amateurs.
But does it get anything done except as a personal hobby?

Here is a very recent example of an enthusiast who is not constrained by the box labeled "modern cosmology":

The M Paradox

It might be fun to imagine what a universe with an edge looks like, but it's based in ignorance and misconception. There's nowhere for the discussion to go, except: "Well, that's not the way any of it works". And it's been locked after four posts for that reason.

 

[ShadowKraz]

There is a difference between the 'box' and knowledge. It is in how one treats the knowledge. If it is assumed to be completely solid, irrefutable knowledge, it becomes the box. The foundation of modern science is precisely to question the knowledge, to test it, to see if it truly is irrefutable; this is not box thinking. Box thinking doesn't question, it assumes. But yes, many scientists become emotionally involved in their ideas and assume that they are on the right track even when evidence starts pointing the other direction. Avi Loeb comes to mind. At that point, they have failed science and become box thinkers.

 

[mathwonk]

As to the breadth of Galois' research, the third part of his testamentary letter, on integrals, displays keen insight into basic questions on abelian integrals, later clarified by Riemann, in particular the division of differentials into first, second, and third kind, according to the nature of their poles, a classification I thought due to Riemann, writing decades later, and specifically a definition of the genus in terms of numbers of periods, and a statement that the space of holomorphic differentials have dimension equal to the genus. Of course Galois gives no details at all. Here he was building on work of Jacobi and Abel, as he built on that of Lagrange in algebra.

 

[renormalize]

The 'deep understanding' of the phenomenon IS outside the box.

You've moved the goal posts by adopting an idiosyncratic definition of the "box". In reality, the box is simply the body of all the knowledge of established physics as understood by those individuals who have studied and contributed to that body. And that body of knowledge certainly does include a "deep understanding" of specific areas of physics by some of those individuals.

In fact most of the deepest discoveries were made only because someone thought outside the box and did not believed, that the model, the map is identical with the terrain.

Yes, and no one disagrees with that. But I claim "knowing what's in the box" is essential for that "someone" to develop and vet their alternative to the orthodoxy. If you truly believe that a deep understanding of the orthodoxy is not required to develop viable alternatives to it, you should easily be able to cite multiple examples where a non-expert was successful in updating our collective understanding of physics.
I'll wait.

 

[Motore]

But the key is, that any discovery, which will then fall into the box is coming from outside of it. In your words. Thus there are wrong assumptions in the box, because the phenomena tells a different story. An example: The Feynman integral with the Planck-cutoff overshoots vacuum energy for the universe and the Higgs-vev. Therefore it is obviously wrong in that form and usage of the Planck-Energy as a cutoff! This is, what is at the moment INSIDE the box.

And the correct solution to that will most probably come from the other knowledge and tools already in the box. That's the point. I have a feeling we are defining the box differently.

 

[Dale]

After a severe thread cleanup, and several thread bans, this thread is reopened. Please remember that we want to keep PF productive. That includes:

1) avoiding getting personal
2) remaining focused on the topic of the thread (which is discussing the insights article)

I will also note, that the Insights article did not claim that there are no problems in the box nor that the solutions come from inside the box. What the article explains is that solutions almost universally come from people who do know what is in the box. Those people think outside the box, but they do not ignore the box or its contents. Many of the deleted posts misrepresented the actual argument in the article.