Thinking "Outside the Box"

[Strange]

 

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”.

 

I doubt anyone would argue with that. Like your listing of changes in scientific knowledge, it is so trivially obvious that it hardly seems worth noting.

[studiot]

RuthlessOptimism, I'm sure communication would proceed much more smoothly if you toned down your tendency to hyperbole and all embracing declarations in support of your points, some of which are quite good.

 

This is the declaration I took issue with, the word every being highlighted.

Had you used the word some I could have agreed.

 

 

that associated with every scientific advancement or triumph is the destruction of previously popular theories

 

I see that Strange has noted the same effect.

 

I can't agree with your latest claims, again hyperbolem with a counterproductive affect.

 

 

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.

 

Just how many centuries before any modern exposition of electric effect was Newton?

 

Finally you are entitled to your opinion but I think most people would place the discovery of the fire, the molecule and antibiotics were extremely significant landmarks in the history of Science.

Those examples were chosen to represent a whole class of advances/discoveries that had no antecedent theory (the box) to negate and therefore cannot be said to have destroyed any previous theory, popular or otherwise.

Edited December 7, 2015 by studiot

[RuthlessOptimism]

 

This is the declaration I took issue with, the word every being highlighted.

 

Yes I know that was silly, that is what I meant before when I said that I was not being specific enough. What I meant to say was that all paradigm shifting scientific breakthroughs by my definition require the refutation of previously held ideas, not all scientific breakthroughs.

 

But that is also a good point about paradigm changing discoveries that had no antecedent theory, however some of those as I understand it may have been by accident, like antibiotics and micro-organisms. In those cases you could argue that any expertise held by the one(s) who made the discovery was a bit irrelevant.

 

I am not trying to be hyperbolic, I am actually trying not to be, I guess I’ll try harder.

 

 

Just how many centuries before any modern exposition of electric effect was Newton?

 

If you count James Clerk Maxwell as being the start of modern descriptions of electric effects, then only two centuries. But the point is (with regards to Newton and Kelvin) that in an institution where leaders earn their position by achievement, like in academia, their opinions hold a great deal of clout. Disagreeing with them may not be conducive to your own advancement if the environment of this institution does not foster alternative thinking. Even if it does, some people still might be too intimidated to voice their actual opinions because of the prestige held by those they are challenging.

 

 

some of which are quite good.

 

Thank you.

 

This thread has made me think of an interesting question partially related to this topic, that many people will probably find equally controversial, and annoying (there I was joking and purposely trying to be hyperbolic). I’ll post that in another thread, but maybe not tonight

[Strange]

What I meant to say was that all paradigm shifting scientific breakthroughs by my definition require the refutation of previously held ideas, not all scientific breakthroughs.

 

Obviously. That is what makes them "paradigm shifting".

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.

 

Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Or is it a gut feel? After all, the examples of "paradigm shifting" science you have listed would seem to contradict this.

[studiot]

 

Ruthless Optimism

I guess I’ll try harder.

 

Excellent attitude +1

 

 

 

 

Studiot

Just how many centuries before any modern exposition of electric effect was Newton?

 

Ruthless Optimism

If you count James Clerk Maxwell as being the start of modern descriptions of electric effects, then only two centuries

 

My point (although it was rather obliquely and gently put) was simply to observe that you wrongly attributed electric field theory to Newton.

Roping something he didn't do in with something he did devalues your argument about the correct stuff.

 

 

 

Ruthless Optimism

But the point is (with regards to Newton and Kelvin) that in an institution where leaders earn their position by achievement, like in academia, their opinions hold a great deal of clout. Disagreeing with them may not be conducive to your own advancement if the environment of this institution does not foster alternative thinking. Even if it does, some people still might be too intimidated to voice their actual opinions because of the prestige held by those they are challenging.

 

I agree with that this effect has sadly occurred many times in scientific history.

However I regard this as a separate process from thinking outside the box.

The new thinking may destroy the box or it may strengthen and extend it.

'Paradigm shift' is certainly not a prerequisite, a new trick for an old dog would suffice to classify the thinking as outside the box.

 

Then there is the issue of timescale.

(Some of this is really directed at Strange and others)

It is easy to say in hindsight that the conventional establishment was right because the white hats prevailed in the end or 'we now know that A's new thinking was right and have replaced B's theory with it.'

But can we really claim that as an establishment victory if B holds back A during their lifetimes and the establishment continues with B's theory until C comesalong and proves A's.

 

Here is a real world example.

 

We now regard Cantor as one of the founding geniuses of modern mathematics,

But look at this short history, ringed in the attachment.

 

 

 

[Strange]

Then there is the issue of timescale.

(Some of this is really directed at Strange and others)

It is easy to say in hindsight that the conventional establishment was right because the white hats prevailed in the end or 'we now know that A's new thinking was right and have replaced B's theory with it.'

But can we really claim that as an establishment victory if B holds back A during their lifetimes and the establishment continues with B's theory until C comesalong and proves A's.

 

Well, you certainly need to avoid the error of looking back and saying something like "B was wrong and he should have realised". Scientific theories (even phlogiston) were "right" in their time if they fit the evidence and knowledge available at the time.

 

And while there may be occasional individuals who hold thinks back there are usually the exception and in the long run the scientific process works out. (It can be argued that these individuals are good for science because they force a higher standard of evidence to be needed.)

[studiot]

 

Strange

and in the long run the scientific process works out.

 

That's why I look forward to the day when we know everything.

 

[RuthlessOptimism]

 

My point (although it was rather obliquely and gently put) was simply to observe that you wrongly attributed electric field theory to Newton.

I did not wrongly attribute electric field theory as we know it to Newton. He and his contemporaries had theories about electric interactions that are now not well known. They viewed the repulsion of electrostatically charged objects of the same polarity as being like billiard balls hitting each other without touching, and a similar but different mechanism for gravity and charges of opposite polarity. I don’t know how to describe this in a good way, it is subtly different from the idea of a field.

 

 

'Paradigm shift' is certainly not a prerequisite, a new trick for an old dog would suffice to classify the thinking as outside the box.

I agree, I was simply using paradigm shifts as an example of thinking outside of the box that is similar to the way people colloquially use the concept of thinking outside of the box.

[DevilSolution]

It still fundamentally boils down to abstract thinking which can sometimes be counter intuitive to logic, which is the biggest problem probably. Especially for people of the science and math realm who use logic as primary tools. I've gone from quite an abstract thinker to a logical thinker mainly because its more grounded and i find it easier to think in logical terms. Keeps david icke and timewave zero at bay.

 

I'd say thinking in abstract terms too much probably isnt healthy either, You'll probably end up drawing all sorts of nonsensical conclusions with perhaps a few good idea's.

 

The great geniuses probably thought very abstract but they are generally acclaimed to some extent or another as insane or reclusive. Not uni-formally but generally speaking anyway.

 

Also i think its important to define what box your in and what box your out, like boby fischer, he was inside the chess box, infact he defined the exact limits of the box, but he was far from within the political box.

 

Philosophically speaking you define your own box and essentially thats what it all comes down to, but then philosophical thought is almost always abstract so i dont know.

 

I think its important to grasp at what intellectual level you actual sit aswell, Like i know im never going to make any major breakthroughs or discoveries because i dont have enough pre-requisites to get deep enough into any field, science and math and philosophy are just hobbies and im content with that. It's therefore better for someone like me to think inside the box or else i'll hardly develop my understanding. Ill leave it to the dr's ad professors to do the heavy lifting.

Edited December 13, 2015 by DevilSolution

[conway]

RuthlessOptimism

 

I have appreaciated you points of view on this. Thank you.