Thinking "Outside the Box"

[Phi for All]

I've made my off-topic thoughts known on outside-the-box thinking recently in another thread. I'll let others chime in on what it means to them.

 

I'll just start us off with this: the original reference, from what I can tell, was to an actual BOX, the 9-dot "box" puzzle where you're supposed to connect all the dots with just 4 straight lines, without lifting up your pencil (Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of 5000 Tricks, Puzzles, and Conundrums, 1914). The only way to solve it is to draw your lines past the perimeter of dots, or "outside the box". It's a misdirection trick, we're fooled because we're thinking of the rules for normal connect-the-dots, but it makes us believe we didn't think hard enough because it seems so simple.

 

Business practices in the 60s picked up on this, encouraging people to think creatively. Since then, it's also come to symbolize how structure and organization stifle free thought. "The Box" is established knowledge, and it's implied that nobody who thinks "inside" can possibly think "outside". And, somehow, it's implied that you'll be especially good at thinking outside "The Box" if you stay away from what's inside entirely.

 

This seems like another phrase that's been misinterpreted and then misapplied. What's your perspective on thinking outside the box?

[RuthlessOptimism]

I don't think this phrase has been misinterpreted or misapplied at all. I think it is definitely true that the more you learn about a certain subject or idea you cannot help but become biased. Sometimes I think the best people to ask about different types of problems are people who are experts in fields that don't seem applicable to the problem at hand. They ask questions and think about the problem in ways that an expert in a "relevant" field never would, and this might provide the new insight or breath of fresh air nescessary to arrive at a solution. Obviously this doesn't always work. But one humorous example already exists in human history, and that is the wheelbarrow.

 

From what I've read the wheel barrow did not exist in europe until around 1300 AD, why? There is absolutely no reason other than that no one had the bright idea to combine a lever and a wheel, people in this area at this time clearly had the "technology" to create wheelbarrows but they never appear in art / pictures of farming or writing about farming until after this period. I am not sure (would require some checking), but I don't think the egyptians even had wheelbarrows, yet they built the great pyramids. People have estimated that wheelbarrows could have saved humans millions of man hours of labor, and maybe even peoples lives due to a decrease in injuries due to the hard labor involved in farming with hand tools.

 

I remember someone describing a persons brain as being like channels for water, or thoughts to flow through that are carved out by previous thoughts / knowledge and experience. The water or thoughts take the path of least resistance. When we are young its like our brains are smooth sand, but as we get older they are like a tortuous network of canyons, in this state it is unlikely for water to find a new path to travel down. A fairly esoteric description but I think this is completely true.

[Strange]

I don't think this phrase has been misinterpreted or misapplied at all. I think it is definitely true that the more you learn about a certain subject or idea you cannot help but become biased. Sometimes I think the best people to ask about different types of problems are people who are experts in fields that don't seem applicable to the problem at hand. They ask questions and think about the problem in ways that an expert in a "relevant" field never would, and this might provide the new insight or breath of fresh air nescessary to arrive at a solution.

 

But if the questions are essentially meaningless (as, for example, are many of the questions/suggestions/assertions made by those "thinking outside the box" on this forum) then it won't provide any insight.

 

Here is an article called "‘Outsiders’ Crack 50-Year-Old Math Problem" which suggests that non-mathematicians have solved a long-standing math problem. But that isn't the case: the "outsiders" are brilliant mathematicians.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer-math-problem/

 

Can you think of an example where a breakthrough was made by, or even inspired by, someone who knew nothing about the subject in question?

 

 

From what I've read the wheel barrow did not exist in europe until around 1300 AD, why? There is absolutely no reason other than that no one had the bright idea to combine a lever and a wheel ...

 

There are other possible reasons (if you think outside the box).

[Phi for All]

Sometimes I think the best people to ask about different types of problems are people who are experts in fields that don't seem applicable to the problem at hand. They ask questions and think about the problem in ways that an expert in a "relevant" field never would, and this might provide the new insight or breath of fresh air nescessary to arrive at a solution.

 

Never would? Really? That's an extraordinary claim I'd like to see some evidential support for.

 

I think this is one of those "modern logic" examples, where you state something as fact just because it makes sense to you that it would be that way. It seems like it might happen this way, so that's the way it is. Poor reasoning, and not logic.

[Janus]

I've made my off-topic thoughts known on outside-the-box thinking recently in another thread. I'll let others chime in on what it means to them.

 

I'll just start us off with this: the original reference, from what I can tell, was to an actual BOX, the 9-dot "box" puzzle where you're supposed to connect all the dots with just 4 straight lines, without lifting up your pencil (Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of 5000 Tricks, Puzzles, and Conundrums, 1914). The only way to solve it is to draw your lines past the perimeter of dots, or "outside the box". It's a misdirection trick, we're fooled because we're thinking of the rules for normal connect-the-dots, but it makes us believe we didn't think hard enough because it seems so simple.

 

Business practices in the 60s picked up on this, encouraging people to think creatively. Since then, it's also come to symbolize how structure and organization stifle free thought. "The Box" is established knowledge, and it's implied that nobody who thinks "inside" can possibly think "outside". And, somehow, it's implied that you'll be especially good at thinking outside "The Box" if you stay away from what's inside entirely.

 

This seems like another phrase that's been misinterpreted and then misapplied. What's your perspective on thinking outside the box?

To use the box puzzle as an example, Those who completely think "outside of the box" and avoid inside the box entirely fail just at at a solution just as badly as those who just think inside the box. The solution requires the lines to pass both inside and outside the box. It's okay to expand your thinking outside the box, but not at the expense of ignoring what's in the box.

[StringJunky]

Thinking outside the box means discovering new correlations within what is already known.

[RuthlessOptimism]

There are many examples of this occurring in science and engineering.

1.) Bombadier beetle: this beetles defence mechanism of shooting toxic super heated liquids out of itself at predators is inspiring new jet engine designs for re-lighting engines at high altitude, by studying things within the field of biology aeronautics engineers could potentially solve problems in ways they might never have imagined.

2.) Physics of Erections: this one is definitely weird but there is another example similar to the first but working in the opposite direction. Biologists long thought that the way erections work was through blood vessels simply inflating with blood, but that is not the whole story. If you know a little bit about materials engineering and mechanics of materials you know that if you cross hatch a fabric it becomes stronger, whereas if you have two layers of fabric with a parallel weft (or is it weave? I forget) the resulting composition is not very strong, its bendy and flexible. This is basically what happens when any animal that has a penis gets an erection, there are two layers of fibrous tissue that at first have their "grain" running parallel, when the penis goes erect these grains are shifted to become anti parallel, thereby giving the tissue more strength and making it rigid. Example of engineers providing insight to biologists.

3.) The work of Srinivasa Ramanujan Iyengar.

4.) Wheelbarrows are still a good example.

5.) Ancient Myths and their relevance to archaeology: Long dismissed by archaeologists as being complete hearsay up until not many decades ago, geologic and archaeologic evidence mounts in support of at least some version of the myths of atlantis (santorini is a good candidate), and Eldorado actually being true. It is probable that many ancient myths contain some amount of truth in them.

6.) Related to 5.), the hanging gardens of Babylon: likely found by an american spy satellite (while they were relatively new pieces of equipment) in southern Iran, as opposed to Babylon which is something like 300 miles away, the greeks often confused these two places (weird but true).

These are just a few examples from history that show that it absolutely is possible for people with no knowledge of a field to significantly contribute to it, in fact it happens all of the time, and will continue to happen with greater frequency the larger knowledge base that we acquire, because the minimum level of training and specialization to be deemed "competent" or an "expert" in a field will continue to grow. There is only so much time in the day to work with, and room in your brain for information. And yes absolutely there are situations that arise where an expert would never think of some possible solutions because it requires pre-requisite knowledge from other fields that they have little to no knowledge of, or in some cases they might not even know that something even is a field, that people studied such things. Sometimes solving a problem if you have the right experience or equipment or both is as simple as the right person knowing that it exists in the first place. If you read my original post I specifically said an expert in a field that is not obviously related, I did not say that they completely knew nothing.

Thinking outside the box is necessary. Ideas, societies, people evolve just as much as organisms do, in the same way for the same reasons. There is a constant struggle to maintain and keep what has previously worked in the past, because it worked, and made you or an idea fit for the environment. But environments are not static, they constantly change, if you do not instigate or allow for some minimum amount of change or growth over time the organism will die. The key is to balance between the uncertainty of new ideas, which may or may not improve things, versus upholding the status quo which in the long run will probably become less and less effective. No one has all of the answer to everything, but I think everyone probably has a small piece of it.

[Strange]

There are many examples of this occurring in science and engineering.

 

It is not clear what you mean by "this".

 

1.) Bombadier beetle: this beetles defence mechanism of shooting toxic super heated liquids out of itself at predators is inspiring new jet engine designs for re-lighting engines at high altitude, by studying things within the field of biology aeronautics engineers could potentially solve problems in ways they might never have imagined.

 

So you are referring to people (experts in their field) getting new ideas from novel sources. That is a good example of how, in order to "think outside the box" you have to have huge expertise in what is "in the box". And kinda contradicts what you said earlier about experts needing help from the ignorant.

 

3.) The work of Srinivasa Ramanujan Iyengar.

 

How is this relevant?

 

 

4.) Wheelbarrows are still a good example.

 

Only if you can provide the historical and sociological evidence to back it up.

 

I don't know anything about the history of the wheelbarrow in Europe. But I do know that the reason Central American cultures didn't use wheeled vehicles is not because nobody "thought out of the box". It is because they were (a) impractical and (b) unnecessary (for a number of reasons). I assume similar explanations could be found for the absence of the wheelbarrow in hisotyr.

 

 

These are just a few examples from history that show that it absolutely is possible for people with no knowledge of a field to significantly contribute to it

 

Sorry, but I didn't see a single example of people with no knowledge of the subject contributing to it. You will have to be a bit clearer.

 

We had:

1) Jet engine designers = experts in their field. Or are you counting the beetles as "people with no knowledge"?

2) Bioengineering = experts in biology and engineering.

3) A brilliant mathematician with a deep knowledge of mathematics, much of it learnt from standard textbooks (i.e. an expert in his field).

4) Unsupported assertion.

5) Experts in archaeology using a wider range of sources. Who, in this scenario, are the "people with no knowledge"?

6) The use of modern technology by archaeologists (experts in their field).

 

None of these involve what we see on science forums. No one with zero knowledge of engineering and jet engine design came along and said: "you should make the turbine blades out of eggshells. And power it by urine. It seems logical to me." And hence started a revolution in jet engine design.

[DevilSolution]

Its the subconscious process of building and strengthening concepts through re-iteration, Once that concept is strong enough you'll never be able to break it.

 

The process behind thinking outside the box is to abstract one idea to another, This becomes harder and harder the more enforced a concept or belief is.

 

Therefore you want one foot in and one foot out. One that questions every new belief and one that can abstract that belief with another.

 

Otherwise we would all be robots without ever creating new idea's because.....why should we sharpen a rock when for thousands of years we've survived without needing to. One foot says were using this rock because its always worked and the other asks what can we do with it.

 

Alot of our knowledge and beliefs are by-proxy to some extent or another, through the beliefs of our society, friends, family etc. Most people wont question these beliefs because they are so deeply entrenched within out subconscious, some however might break the cycle and ask why shouldnt women have the same rights as men? why should we be allowed to print money but they aren't? and so on. But this isnt intrinsic in everyone, the necessity to question everything is fundamental to thinking outside the box. And then ofcourse your left with various sets of groups you can define based on what they question, what they did with the knowledge and how they behave because of it.

 

All that being said you must have some fundamental basis from which to start, you must endeavour to understand what is perceived as truth and then apply any abstract notion of thought you have upon that knowledge to create new idea's and beliefs. Then you can open discus those idea;s with people or keep them to yourself. Which usually happens once people realise your actually quite insane and your concept of reality is not theirs. (such as science vs religion within history)

Edited December 5, 2015 by DevilSolution

[studiot]

Thank you phi for researching the origin and history of the phrase, that is all new to me.

 

It would seem that there are those who find its use distasteful and those who consider it a badge of honour.

There is therefore an obvious potential for misunderstanding its usage.

 

As a child of the 50s and 60s I would place myself in the badge of honour camp; it is the only version I have ever known.

 

I have always thought of the usage to be particularly for situations when there would normally be a conventional solution but some additional (new) constraint is acting to prevent or obstruct success.

These constraints may be financial, physical, artificial or whatever.

 

This interpretation would exclude genuine new inventions or discoveries. I think perhaps 'blue sky thinking' is more appropriate to these activities.

 

Further my interpretation makes no distinction or stipulation as to the level of expertise of the intitiator.

 

As examples I offer

The use of empty oils drums by the financially constrained British to assess blast damage from nuclear tests.

The creation of new oil replacement chemical technology by the Germans in WWII, and later the South Africans when under embargo; both were starved of oil.

Columbus reaching America going west trying to reach China when the silk road was closed to him.

Edited December 5, 2015 by studiot

[DevilSolution]

Sorry, but I didn't see a single example of people with no knowledge of the subject contributing to it. You will have to be a bit clearer.

 

We had:

1) Jet engine designers = experts in their field. Or are you counting the beetles as "people with no knowledge"?

2) Bioengineering = experts in biology and engineering.

3) A brilliant mathematician with a deep knowledge of mathematics, much of it learnt from standard textbooks (i.e. an expert in his field).

4) Unsupported assertion.

5) Experts in archaeology using a wider range of sources. Who, in this scenario, are the "people with no knowledge"?

6) The use of modern technology by archaeologists (experts in their field).

 

None of these involve what we see on science forums. No one with zero knowledge of engineering and jet engine design came along and said: "you should make the turbine blades out of eggshells. And power it by urine. It seems logical to me." And hence started a revolution in jet engine design.

 

Ofcourse you must have knowledge of it, but you must also be careful how concretely you accept that knowledge. Most forms of progression are usually extensions of the previous, but sometimes what the progression defines as new contradicts this previous knowledge. (as with some scientific theories now).

Both cant be right? Yet we will use them both. (for example Newtonian physics vs general relativity (and QM))

Edited December 5, 2015 by DevilSolution

[RuthlessOptimism]

You basically did not understand anything that I wrote. The point is not the complete absence of expertise, it is that a "box" can be thought of as any body of knowledge. Archaeologists for example are experts in their field, they are probably not capable of building satellites by themselves. This requires knowledge outside of their "box" from someone elses. It is obviously far less likely that archaeological discoveries (once again as only one specific example) that were made as a result of satellite photos would ever have been made if satellites were not invented. These discoveries required "thinking outside of the box of archaeology".

[Strange]

You basically did not understand anything that I wrote. The point is not the complete absence of expertise, it is that a "box" can be thought of as any body of knowledge. Archaeologists for example are experts in their field, they are probably not capable of building satellites by themselves. This requires knowledge outside of their "box" from someone elses. It is obviously far less likely that archaeological discoveries (once again as only one specific example) that were made as a result of satellite photos would ever have been made if satellites were not invented. These discoveries required "thinking outside of the box of archaeology".

 

I understood (nearly*) everything you wrote. I just didn't think they were examples of "thinking outside the box" as it is usually used by posters on science forums, nor as you described it in your first post. Some of them might be examples of the "correct" use of the phrase: experts can exploit knowledge or techniques or ideas provided by other experts.

 

No one would disagree that experts from one field can assist experts in another field. This is why multidisciplinary teams are so important in science and engineering (and archaeology and, in fact, pretty much every field).

 

(*) I still don't see the how Ramanujan fits.

[ajb]

Research scientist and mathematicians 'think outside the box' all the time. However, they do not rip up the box and set it on fire!

Edited December 5, 2015 by ajb

[Phi for All]

Collaborative multidisciplinary problem solving isn't "thinking outside the box" to me. It's seems more like an example of the extremely high degree of cooperation and communication humans have evolved to use. And normally in those situations, it seems like the probability of a non-expert coming up with a solution to a particular problem are going to be only slightly higher than random guesswork. The experts, however, have a much broader range of knowledge and therefore have a higher probability of being successful.

 

There's something tainted about "the box" concept as it's used popularly. It automatically implies rigid, intractable, unchanging adherence to past knowledge, and many people use it to imply outside-the-box thinking is the only way to progress. They talk about it like "the box" never changes, that it's hidebound, it plugs its ears to new ideas. This isn't at all what the original puzzle was supposed to show. In the original "box", the box is quite necessary, and for some things, you need to include some parts that are outside as well as inside. Because let's face it, most out-of-the-box solutions are like 1 part out, 9 parts in.

[RuthlessOptimism]

 

(*) I still don't see the how Ramanujan fits.

Ramanujan is an Indian mathematician who made a bunch of contributions to mathematics. He did not acquire any formal mathematical training until he had already re-derived (from scratch) a bunch of different theorems that were already known, but not known to him. Some of his other work was original, and unknown in mathematics at the time. He is basically the poster person of someone who thought outside of the box “as it is usually used by posters on science forums”. If you want to see a list of many more similar people simply google for a list of “autodidacts”, a surprising number of influential people in history had little to no formal education or training.

 

 

I just didn't think they were examples of "thinking outside the box" as it is usually used by posters on science forums, nor as you described it in your first post.

I am going to quote myself here:

 

I think it is definitely true that the more you learn about a certain subject or idea you cannot help but become biased. Sometimes I think the best people to ask about different types of problems are people who are experts in fields that don't seem applicable to the problem at hand.

 

 

"the box" concept as it's used popularly. It automatically implies rigid, intractable, unchanging adherence to past knowledge, and many people use it to imply outside-the-box thinking is the only way to progress.

I completely agree with this statement, what I guess I did not make clear is a difference in context. What I am saying is that the rigid, intractable, unchanging adherence to past knowledge is not always a conscious effort. As I wrote before, the bias is unintentional, say you become a physicist. Because of your training you think about problems from the perspective of a physicist. Which is not nescessarily the same as the way an engineer would think about or approach problems, or an archaeologist, or a chemist, or a business analyst. When I am talking about thinking outside the box of a body of knowledge I do not mean multidisciplinary teams. If you are on a multidisciplinary team its because people before hand anticipated that your knowledge was probably going to be useful for something. The examples I gave were of situations where the outside knowledge came from a place that was unexpected.

 

With regards to the other times, where there might indeed be a conscious effort to adhere to past knowledge. There is an equally wrong bit of conventional wisdom like “the box” idea which is the idea that because someone is educated, or a scientist they are automatically a “good” or “honest” person, or that they would never allow emotions to influence their decisions. That is obviously completely ridiculous, and I am certain anyone who has ever actually taken part in academia if you are honest with yourself can think of at least one situation where they have seen this themselves (I know I can).

 

Maybe thinking outside the box is not the only way to progress knowledge but it is usually associated with paradigm shifting breakthroughs. Once again I am not saying that expertise, knowledge or skills are irrelevant what I am saying is that you can’t always be sure which are going to be the catalyst for new discoveries. Scientific and technological advancement is not always a linear path from point A to B. If you actually look at scientific history you will see that associated with every scientific advancement or triumph is the destruction of previously popular theories held by other scientists, or bits of conventional wisdom held by the general public or people in positions of influence (most notably the church). Here is a very small list of examples,

 

-the earth is flat, wrong

-the earth is the center of the universe, wrong

-the universe is static, wrong

-action at a distance does not require an intervening field, medium, or exchange particles (this was a very popular line of thought among scientifically influential people like Isaac Newton before Maxwell came along with his equations describing light), wrong

-ionizing radiation comes out of the earth, wrong

-heavier than air flying machines are impossible, wrong

-light is a wave, not nescessarily true

-light is a particle, also not nescessarily true

-the atom is like a miniature solar system, wrong

-particles are discrete physical objects, not nescessarily true

-particles are waves, also not nescessarily true

 

[Phi for All]

I am going to quote myself here:

Nothing good ever follows this phrase. Sort of like, "Now hear me out".

 

I completely agree with this statement,

What, the statement of mine you hacked up in order to agree with it?! MY point in that sentence, the part you chose to censor, was that the concept is tainted. It makes assumptions that poison the well regarding "the box". It's mis-informative foundationally.

 

what I guess I did not make clear is a difference in context. What I am saying is that the rigid, intractable, unchanging adherence to past knowledge is not always a conscious effort. As I wrote before, the bias is unintentional, say you become a physicist. Because of your training you think about problems from the perspective of a physicist. Which is not nescessarily the same as the way an engineer would think about or approach problems, or an archaeologist, or a chemist, or a business analyst. When I am talking about thinking outside the box of a body of knowledge I do not mean multidisciplinary teams. If you are on a multidisciplinary team its because people before hand anticipated that your knowledge was probably going to be useful for something. The examples I gave were of situations where the outside knowledge came from a place that was unexpected.

 

With regards to the other times, where there might indeed be a conscious effort to adhere to past knowledge. There is an equally wrong bit of conventional wisdom like “the box” idea which is the idea that because someone is educated, or a scientist they are automatically a “good” or “honest” person, or that they would never allow emotions to influence their decisions. That is obviously completely ridiculous, and I am certain anyone who has ever actually taken part in academia if you are honest with yourself can think of at least one situation where they have seen this themselves (I know I can).

 

Again, this is just stuff that makes sense to you, things you've made up because they seem "logical". You have no evidence, for example, that any physicist behaves the way you claim. You just assume there are some that do, out of all those people. And even if a few did, guess what? Science is a meritocracy, so it's very difficult to stop new ideas if they're sound.

 

You're making this out to be a large problem, when I think it's mostly made up by people who don't know how science or scientists work. The whole honesty bit is a big red herring, imo, since it applies equally to everyone, so I'd prefer not to go there.

 

Maybe thinking outside the box is not the only way to progress knowledge but it is usually associated with paradigm shifting breakthroughs. Once again I am not saying that expertise, knowledge or skills are irrelevant what I am saying is that you can’t always be sure which are going to be the catalyst for new discoveries. Scientific and technological advancement is not always a linear path from point A to B. If you actually look at scientific history you will see that associated with every scientific advancement or triumph is the destruction of previously popular theories held by other scientists, or bits of conventional wisdom held by the general public or people in positions of influence (most notably the church). Here is a very small list of examples,

 

-the earth is flat, wrong

-the earth is the center of the universe, wrong

-the universe is static, wrong

-action at a distance does not require an intervening field, medium, or exchange particles (this was a very popular line of thought among scientifically influential people like Isaac Newton before Maxwell came along with his equations describing light), wrong

-ionizing radiation comes out of the earth, wrong

-heavier than air flying machines are impossible, wrong

-light is a wave, not nescessarily true

-light is a particle, also not nescessarily true

-the atom is like a miniature solar system, wrong

-particles are discrete physical objects, not nescessarily true

-particles are waves, also not nescessarily true

 

IOW, science evolves with new knowledge. I knew that.

[CharonY]

 

Ofcourse you must have knowledge of it, but you must also be careful how concretely you accept that knowledge. Most forms of progression are usually extensions of the previous, but sometimes what the progression defines as new contradicts this previous knowledge. (as with some scientific theories now).

Both cant be right? Yet we will use them both. (for example Newtonian physics vs general relativity (and QM))

 

An expert on a particular field is not someone who has accumulated known information but has also acquired the ability to evaluate it. In order to push the boundaries of knowledge it is therefore crucial to understand shortcomings and improve in that area. The box analogy fails in many areas of science because we are pushing at the boundaries all the time and it is impossible to delineate boundaries. Experts in structural biology have accumulated knowledge that I am not aware of (as a molecular biologist) but I expect that at one time or another it will spill over to my field and I have to make appropriate adjustments due to the new findings.

Likewise looking at new molecular interactions will at one point lead to altered or completely new ways we have to address diseases or infections. Sure, if a cell biologists decides to use methodologies from physics to address a problem, you could argue it is outside of the box for that person. Yet these types of interactions happen all the time, though the farther the fields are, the longer it takes until one party realizes that methodologies from a different discipline may be more suitable.

And then there are the in-betweeners who specialize more in methodologies rather than systems. They may bring methods that are applicable for e.g. bacterial physiology as well as environmental monitoring (to provide random examples). What would be the shape of their boxes?

 

As such, thinking outside the box in scientific communities tend not to be something seen as relevant. What you hear more often is something along the line of: "whatever works is right".

[studiot]

Why do you guys have to have such long handles to type in?

 

 

RuthlessOptimism

If you actually look at scientific history you will see that associated with every scientific advancement or triumph is the destruction of previously popular theories held by other scientists, or bits of conventional wisdom held by the general public or people in positions of influence (most notably the church). Here is a very small list of examples

 

I can't agree with this.

 

Since you like lists here are a few major discoveries/breakthroughs that were not borne in such strife.

 

Ut pendet continuum flexile, sic stabit contiguum rigidum inversum

 

The discovery of penecillin

 

The discovery of the vulcanisation of rubber

 

Probably the discovery of how to make fire

 

 

phi for all

 

 

Your stout defence of the good name of scientists in general is fine but sadly misplaced in certain individual cases.

 

Berzelius suppressed the development of Chemistry for at least half a century.

 

The denial of Bayesian statistics by Pearson and Fisher and its resulting suppression for nearly a century.

Edited December 5, 2015 by studiot

[RuthlessOptimism]

 

Nothing good ever follows this phrase. Sort of like, "Now hear me out".

 

I was trying to point out that the examples that I gave were of cases that I defined as thinking outside the box.

 

In your OP you asked this:

 

 

What's your perspective on thinking outside the box?

 

 

What, the statement of mine you hacked up in order to agree with it?! MY point in that sentence, the part you chose to censor, was that the concept is tainted. It makes assumptions that poison the well regarding "the box". It's mis-informative foundationally.

 

I was not trying to misrepresent what you said, I was trying to disagree with you in a "fancy and clever" way.

 

 

Again, this is just stuff that makes sense to you, things you've made up because they seem "logical".

 

It is logical to think that your creativity, or perspective on things in general is restricted as much by what you do know as what you don’t. Take indoctrination of child soldiers as an extreme example. It is not possible to be an expert on everything, to know every fact that exists. For every “thing” you learn you are basically excluding yourself from learning at least one other “thing” in its place. This is not pseudo science or a bunch of mumbo jumbo, if you want think of it in terms of neurons. Memories and skills are basically constructed inside of your head out of neurons, physical objects, there is only a finite amount of volume in your head for brain Matter, only so much room for neural paths. If you want evidence look at the research on neural plasticity, how cab drivers hippocampus’ are enlarged due to the necessity of a heightened sense of spatial awareness and navigation in their job. They learn to be a cab driver, it literally alters their brain structure.

 

I basically agree with everything CharonY wrote, except that I do define this as thinking outside the box. In order to push scientific and technological advancement people must and do continually find new ways of applying or combining old knowledge that in their purist form may not be closely related, to me that is thinking outside the box.

 

 

Since you like lists here are a few major discoveries/breakthroughs that were not borne in such strife.

 

I guess I was not being specific enough. What I meant by paradigm shifting breakthroughs are scientific discoveries that significantly alter our perception of nature, for example matter wave duality, and / or our place or relationship to it, for example man made climate change. Basically by definition a paradigm shift is paired with the casting off of previously held beliefs that turned out to be wrong, or in other words the realization that our box has failed us. I would not really classify any examples you listed as paradigm shifting discoveries.

[Bill Angel]

In order to push scientific and technological advancement people must and do continually find new ways of applying or combining old knowledge that in their purist form may not be closely related, to me that is thinking outside the box....

What I meant by paradigm shifting breakthroughs are scientific discoveries that significantly alter our perception of nature, for example matter wave duality, and / or our place or relationship to it, for example man made climate change. Basically by definition a paradigm shift is paired with the casting off of previously held beliefs that turned out to be wrong, or in other words the realization that our box has failed us.

I agree with what you said and thought that this cartoon makes a related point in a humorous fashion.

[Strange]

Ramanujan is an Indian mathematician who made a bunch of contributions to mathematics.

 

I know who he was.

 

If you want to see a list of many more similar people simply google for a list of “autodidacts”, a surprising number of influential people in history had little to no formal education or training.

 

 

So, presumably you think autodidacts are more likely to "think outside the box|"? Do you have any evidence to support that?

 

-the earth is flat, wrong

 

<sigh>

 

I suggest that we have a new forum rule: Anyone who brings up this myth automatically loses.

 

-action at a distance does not require an intervening field, medium, or exchange particles (this was a very popular line of thought among scientifically influential people like Isaac Newton before Maxwell came along with his equations describing light), wrong

 

Haven't you got that the wrong way round? For example, people assumed the aether must exist because light would require a medium. But it doesn't.

 

-heavier than air flying machines are impossible, wrong

 

I suppose a few ignorant people might have thought that, but so what. The "experts" never did.

 

So all these examples show is that science changes and evolves as we learn more. A few of these are paradigm shifts.

 

 

I guess I was not being specific enough. What I meant by paradigm shifting breakthroughs are scientific discoveries that significantly alter our perception of nature, for example matter wave duality, and / or our place or relationship to it, for example man made climate change. Basically by definition a paradigm shift is paired with the casting off of previously held beliefs that turned out to be I would not really classify any examples you listed as paradigm shifting discoveries.

 

But EVERY paradigm shift is created by those working in the field.

Why do you guys have to have such long handles to type in?

 

Who types them? That is what the quote function is for.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Strange

[RuthlessOptimism]

 

So, presumably you think autodidacts are more likely to "think outside the box|"? Do you have any evidence to support that?

 

Do you actually read anything that I post? By my definition of thinking outside of the box, everything they come up with is technically thinking outside of the box because they were never bound by it to begin with. They are outsiders to the established doctrine, methodology, and knowledge base.

 

 

Haven't you got that the wrong way round? For example, people assumed the aether must exist because light would require a medium. But it doesn't.

 

No I do not have it the wrong way around. The aether is not the same thing as action at a distance as people at the time classified it. The aether was as you said associated with light, which was thought by many to be a wave. Within their current pool of knowledge (or box) it was known waves needed a medium to travel through, hence the proposition of an aether. Action at a distance was a characteristic associated with gravity, and charge interactions. Newton and many prominent scientists of the time scoffed at the idea of a “field” describing electric and gravitational interactions. To them the idea that objects could interact without touching was “obvious”. It was not until Maxwell came along with his equations that mathematical formulations of fields began to become prominent because his equations predicted the speed of light accurately.

 

 

I suppose a few ignorant people might have thought that, but so what. The "experts" never did.

 

No, that was actually a quote from the famous scientist Lord Kelvin himself, who also thought that “X-rays will soon be proven to be a hoax”.

 

 

But EVERY paradigm shift is created by those working in the field.

 

Once again it is like you are refusing to understand what I have written. I am not saying that experts are unnecessary or have nothing to offer, go back and read my posts again, I never wrote or argued that idea.

 

What you all seem to be ignoring is the fact that at some point, all knowledge that is accepted now, or technology that we take for granted was not obvious. Someone had to actually make a connection between disparate knowledge bases, ideas, methodologies or doctrines, or try something new within their own field. Often times contradictory to established ideas, or conventional wisdom.

 

 

[Strange]

Do you actually read anything that I post? By my definition of thinking outside of the box, everything they come up with is technically thinking outside of the box because they were never bound by it to begin with. They are outsiders to the established doctrine, methodology, and knowledge base.

 

I don't follow that. Whether they educated themselves or were educated by others, they have developed an expertise in the subject. It is easy to pick on one example of someone self-taught, such as Ramanujan, and claim that therefore all of them must be equally insightful but, basically, I don't believe it.

 

If he had been from a different family background and gone to university, then I assume he would have been equally brilliant and made just as many breakthroughs. He appears to have been a bit of a savant.

 

But I'm sure there are also examples of autodidacts who are pretty average and don't make breakthroughs.

 

Newton and many prominent scientists of the time scoffed at the idea of a “field” describing electric and gravitational interactions. To them the idea that objects could interact without touching was “obvious”.

 

I always thought Newton and others were very unhappy with the idea of action at a distance. In fact, didn't he say something about his law of gravitation describing the way gravity behaved but he had no idea how it could work.

 

No, that was actually a quote from the famous scientist Lord Kelvin himself, who also thought that “X-rays will soon be proven to be a hoax”.

 

Was he an expert in flight? Or just a pompous ass? Again, you seem to be extrapolating from an individual to a more general problem (which doesn't appear to exist).

 

What you all seem to be ignoring is the fact that at some point, all knowledge that is accepted now, or technology that we take for granted was not obvious.

 

No one is ignoring that. It is well known and totally obvious. So much so that I'm not even sure why you brought it up.

 

Someone had to actually make a connection between disparate knowledge bases, ideas, methodologies or doctrines, or try something new within their own field. Often times contradictory to established ideas, or conventional wisdom.

 

OK. But contrary to the way "thinking outside the box" is normally used, the people who did this were all firmly "inside the box".

Edited December 6, 2015 by Strange

[RuthlessOptimism]

 

How many times do I have to point out to you that I am not saying that expertise is not relevant, nor that major contributors to science don’t have it (regardless of where they got that expertise). What I am saying is that possessing knowledge, as counterintuitive as this may seem, can be as limiting as not possessing it. And I want you to take special note that I wrote “can be as limiting”, not “is”, because I know you are going to think I am making a sweeping generalization that I am actually not. The reason why is a matter of perspective. If you are taught something some way, or taught to think a certain way and you don’t question this knowledge or doctrine you will obviously not discover alternative descriptions of this knowledge nor alternative methodologies. You are trapped inside of a box. Taking for granted the fact that the description of a process is accurate, or that one methodology works is limiting. You may assume that this is just the way things work, or this is the way we’ve always done it, and miss opportunities to discover a way that is better.

 

This is similar to the idea of “survival bias”, it seems to me that scientific theories and the development of knowledge in general are very susceptible to this type of bias. Once again this is not an intentional aspect of the pursuit of scientific knowledge, though also once again just because science is generally associated with altruistic goals and endeavors does not mean that it and all who practice it are incapable of reprehensible actions.

 

Also I never said that all autodidacts make major contributions to science, I said that a surprising number of influential people in history were autodidacts.

 

For the last time I am not saying that expertise is unnecessary, nor that experts are incapable of having original ideas, if you actually read what I originally posted my point of view can basically be stripped away into its rawest form as: “sometimes an outside opinion is helpful”.

 

This is crazy, you keep completely ignoring the point(s) that I try to make and twist my words into possessing meaning that they clearly don’t. It is impossible to actually have a discussion or argument like this. For the record Strange, until you learn to actually understand someones point of view before attempting to criticize it I am just going to ignore your responses to my posts.