Solving Difficult Physics Questions: Beyond Technical Thinking?

[Digitalism]

Firstly, I hope that my post does not offend anyone or come across as hostile. My goal is to challenge others with questions that I myself am wrestling with and hopefully stimulate some personal growth for myself and others. It seems at times that people who "think technically" within the sciences can misperceive many situations in life and seem to "miss the point." I seems as though these "errors" can carry over into work within the field of physics and make discoveries that would be more easily found by using a different perspective seem elusive because we can get caught up in a self-woven web. Can the sciences be improved by opening them up to ways of thinking that are normally seen as being outside the bounds of and perhaps even contradictory to science?

 

[Jack21222]

No.

Next question.

 

[humanino]

Is there any significant example from history ? I expect a couple of possible answers which I am ready to discuss

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Firstly, I hope that my post does not offend anyone or come across as hostile. My goal is to challenge others with questions that I myself am wrestling with and hopefully stimulate some personal growth for myself and others. It seems at times that people who "think technically" within the sciences can misperceive many situations in life and seem to "miss the point." I seems as though these "errors" can carry over into work within the field of physics and make discoveries that would be more easily found by using a different perspective seem elusive because we can get caught up in a self-woven web. Can the sciences be improved by opening them up to ways of thinking that are normally seen as being outside the bounds of and perhaps even contradictory to science?

I think science has done a wonderful job of contradicting itself paradigmatically over the centuries.

 

[Drakkith]

The reason many scientif minded people think the way they do, is because that is the way science works. There is ALWAYS a reason that something works the way it works. Some way to describe it mathmatically. The sum of scientific knowledge is so vast and varied, that simple every day questions can seem extremely generalized and inadequate.

I experience this all the time. Many times a friend or co-worker will ask me a question and I will have to ask them to elaborate and give me specifics and details and get them to tell me exactly what they are wanting to know in order to give them a correct answer. Especially questions such as "Which one of these is better?". I usually reply with, "Well, that depends on what you mean as better." And so forth. It frustrates me to no end when people can't understand that many things only mean what they mean when defined a certain way or from a certain point of view. Especially politics and related topics.

 

[JaredJames]

I experience this all the time. Many times a friend or co-worker will ask me a question and I will have to ask them to elaborate and give me specifics and details and get them to tell me exactly what they are wanting to know in order to give them a correct answer. Especially questions such as "Which one of these is better?". I usually reply with, "Well, that depends on what you mean as better." And so forth. It frustrates me to no end when people can't understand that many things only mean what they mean when defined a certain way or from a certain point of view. Especially politics and related topics.

Wow, twice in as many threads. I too find myself in this very similar situation, particularly since posting here.

I often need to ask people to clarify questions and give me a bit more detail before I can confidently give them an answer.

For example, I was discussing the wikileaks issue with my grandfather and he was saying how a person on a politics tv show had said "how would you feel if personal information from you was posted on the internet?" and I found myself having to explain the difference between public and private, particularly in the realms of data and the government. (In other words, the wikileaks stuff generally falls under the public domain, not private and so the two aren't analogous.)

 

[Drakkith]

Wow, twice in as many threads. I too find myself in this very similar situation, particularly since posting here.

I often need to ask people to clarify questions and give me a bit more detail before I can confidently give them an answer.

For example, I was discussing the wikileaks issue with my grandfather and he was saying how a person on a politics tv show had said "how would you feel if personal information from you was posted on the internet?" and I found myself having to explain the difference between public and private, particularly in the realms of data and the government. (In other words, the wikileaks stuff generally falls under the public domain, not private and so the two aren't analogous.)

Exactly! I get into stuff like this all the time!

Unfortunently, many people just can't seem to understand that there are differences everywhere and reasons for everything. Simply saying something is "Stupid" or "Wrong" when you don't even really understand why it works that way in the first place is crazy! I feel like I'm the only one that understand this lol!

 

[Digitalism]

Well, to clarify, part of what I am trying to get at is very abstract and difficult to explain so I will start with something that hopefully is more reasonable(?). Many times, science seems to be very task oriented in its approach. As someone mentioned earlier it can be very result oriented (with the "answer" being the result). But, as with any kind of mental task there is an affective component as well. What the information means or implies emotionally as well. So, rather than pretend as though that is not a factor in the process I am suggesting maybe a more experiential approach that takes this into consideration. (I am on a mobile device so it is difficult for me to provide direct links to sources. I will cite examples of some information I am thinking of in subsequent posts.) For example, it seems as though the tasks like thinking about a subject critically for a prolonged period of time can act as a stressor and increase cortisol release which effects mood, immune function, and productivity.

 

[Jack21222]

Well, to clarify, part of what I am trying to get at is very abstract and difficult to explain so I will start with something that hopefully is more reasonable(?). Many times, science seems to be very task oriented in its approach. As someone mentioned earlier it can be very result oriented (with the "answer" being the result). But, as with any kind of mental task there is an affective component as well. What the information means or implies emotionally as well. So, rather than pretend as though that is not a factor in the process I am suggesting maybe a more experiential approach that takes this into consideration. (I am on a mobile device so it is difficult for me to provide direct links to sources. I will cite examples of some information I am thinking of in subsequent posts.) For example, it seems as though the tasks like thinking about a subject critically for a prolonged period of time can act as a stressor and increase cortisol release which effects mood, immune function, and productivity.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If your intention was to clarify, it didn't work for me.

 

[Evo]

(In other words, the wikileaks stuff generally falls under the public domain, not private and so the two aren't analogous.)

I don't think "public domain" means what you think it means. Classified government documents do not become declassified just because they are posted on the internet. Just as a copyrighted work does not enter the "public domain" if it is posted on the internet.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, to clarify, part of what I am trying to get at is very abstract and difficult to explain so I will start with something that hopefully is more reasonable(?). Many times, science seems to be very task oriented in its approach. As someone mentioned earlier it can be very result oriented (with the "answer" being the result). But, as with any kind of mental task there is an affective component as well. What the information means or implies emotionally as well. So, rather than pretend as though that is not a factor in the process I am suggesting maybe a more experiential approach that takes this into consideration. (I am on a mobile device so it is difficult for me to provide direct links to sources. I will cite examples of some information I am thinking of in subsequent posts.) For example, it seems as though the tasks like thinking about a subject critically for a prolonged period of time can act as a stressor and increase cortisol release which effects mood, immune function, and productivity.

Yah you're going to actually have to give an example here.

Unless... we just fell into your trap of wanting tasks and results and what not! Oooooo... you got us!

 

[FlexGunship]

Well, to clarify, part of what I am trying to get at is very abstract and difficult to explain so I will start with something that hopefully is more reasonable(?). Many times, science seems to be very task oriented in its approach. As someone mentioned earlier it can be very result oriented (with the "answer" being the result). But, as with any kind of mental task there is an affective component as well. What the information means or implies emotionally as well. So, rather than pretend as though that is not a factor in the process I am suggesting maybe a more experiential approach that takes this into consideration. (I am on a mobile device so it is difficult for me to provide direct links to sources. I will cite examples of some information I am thinking of in subsequent posts.) For example, it seems as though the tasks like thinking about a subject critically for a prolonged period of time can act as a stressor and increase cortisol release which effects mood, immune function, and productivity.

What a terribly confusing clarification. (This post might be used to clarify your idea in much the same way cat vomit might be used to clarify drinking water.) I suspect you're not sure what you're trying to ask. One of he unfortunate side effects is that you sound like Deepak Chopra.

In your example, you are postulating a cause-effect relationship between increased critical thinking (i.e. higher logic functions) and cortisol release. Secondly you are postulating a connection between cortisol release and changes in immune function (among other things).

The fact that you have chosen to mash together several ideas only serves to show that you're simply confused about what you're asking. The comparisons you wish to make are fundamentally scientific and are easily testable. You have done exactly what others have discussed already: confused yourself by asking an overly complicated question in an overly simplistic way. "What do you mean by 'mood'?" "How do you characterize 'productivity'?"

It seems you would do well to think of a different example.

 

[Drakkith]

Well, to clarify, part of what I am trying to get at is very abstract and difficult to explain so I will start with something that hopefully is more reasonable(?). Many times, science seems to be very task oriented in its approach. As someone mentioned earlier it can be very result oriented (with the "answer" being the result). But, as with any kind of mental task there is an affective component as well. What the information means or implies emotionally as well. So, rather than pretend as though that is not a factor in the process I am suggesting maybe a more experiential approach that takes this into consideration. (I am on a mobile device so it is difficult for me to provide direct links to sources. I will cite examples of some information I am thinking of in subsequent posts.) For example, it seems as though the tasks like thinking about a subject critically for a prolonged period of time can act as a stressor and increase cortisol release which effects mood, immune function, and productivity.

Are you saying that scientific minded people don't seem to "enjoy" or put their emotions into their work? If so, nothing could be further from the truth. Almost nothing was more profound to me than simply seeing Jupiter for the first time through my telescope. I've seen pictures from the Voyager probes and such before, but there was something else about actually SEEING it on my own using nothing but what comes down to a mirror and some glass to magnify the image. It was amazing to say the least.

Many people are extremely satisfied with their jobs or hobbies or whatever. The problem is that so many people are NOT like minded and don't know anything about science, and even worse, they have misconceptions about it, that they don't understand exactly what it takes to do it.

Science is a constantly changing field that will continually challenge and refine previous ideas. For this reason, a mindset that takes a step back and doesn't stay too focused on one aspect is needed to avoid getting tunnel vision and ignoring new evidence and such. I know more than a few people that simply CANNOT accept this fact. They think that science is unchanging and that we believe that our current answers are the ONLY ones ever going to be correct. This couldn't be further from the truth. (For most at least)

Hope this is more to what you were describing. If not, sorry. =)

 

[Pengwuino]

Man there are a lot of answers posted for a seemingly unanswerable question.

 

[Drakkith]

Man there are a lot of answers posted for a seemingly unanswerable question.

It may be a little vague, but hopefully we can clear this up. =)

 

[DaveC426913]

Digitalism, just give us some concrete examples.

I know it's tempting to play your best cards close to your chest but, as anyone who's played euchre knows, if you hold your trumps until the end, you've already lost.

Out with it.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't think "public domain" means what you think it means. Classified government documents do not become declassified just because they are posted on the internet. Just as a copyrighted work does not enter the "public domain" if it is posted on the internet.

Oh no, certainly not. I meant there is a difference between something in the public domain and something in private.

I didn't get to classified in my discussion with my grandfather before I had to give up.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

I don't think someone from outside science can even understand the most difficult questions, let alone give any contribution to solving them, despite the plethora of popular books published on all the most sexy scientific conundra. These books give an most a superficial understanding of anything. The devil is in the details, as they say, which are lacking from any popular source.

One is not going to find a cure for cancer without first understanding organic chemistry; likewise, one is not going to unify gravity and quantum mechanics without first understanding gauge connections and Lie groups.

 

[jobyts]

Is there any significant example from history ? I expect a couple of possible answers which I am ready to discuss

If I understand OP's question correctly, an example would be,
Kekule's dream about the snake catching its own tail helped him to discover the ring shape of the Benzene molecule. (chemistry domain)

 

[Proton Soup]

i think there is always a benefit from different points of view. keeps one from thinking in a rut.

and i think true creativity requires an element of considering the absurd. but that also requires you have the tools to verify or disprove those possibilities as they come to you.

 

[Zarqon]

I would say it's important for the OP to make a distinction between

"Current scientific theories"

and

"The scientific method"

History has shown several times that it's not only sometimes beneficial, but even necessary to step away from current scientific theories, for a while, in order to make the big leap type progresses. The scientific method on the other hand, meaning developing theories such that they can be verified experimentally, is something that I don't see any benefit of stepping away from, because the scientific method is what enables other people to trust the theories and the results.

 

[DaveC426913]

I would say it's important for the OP to make a distinction between "Current scientific theories" and "The scientific method"
History has shown several times that it's not only sometimes beneficial, but even necessary to step away from current scientific theories, for a while, in order to make the big leap type progresses. The scientific method on the other hand, meaning developing theories such that they can be verified experimentally, is something that I don't see any benefit of stepping away from, because the scientific method is what enables other people to trust the theories and the results.

Well said.

 

[DaveC426913]

Since the OP hasn't been back, I wonder if he thought he'd just drop a firecracker into a hornet's nest and step back to see what happens.

 

[billiards]

Can the sciences be improved by opening them up to ways of thinking that are normally seen as being outside the bounds of and perhaps even contradictory to science?

Yes it can.

Example: at one time using equations to describe the world was not how science was done, one day someone came along and used equations in their work, from that day forth science was improved.

Clearly, if a new thing comes along that is successful it will be embraced (sometimes very slowly, especially if it is seen to be contradictory to the paradigm) and then will gradually become part of science, that's one way in which science grows.

 

[FlexGunship]

[...]and then will gradually become part of science, that's one way in which science grows.

We add new things to our knowledge through science.

Science should be thought of as a verb; a process; a method by which knowledge is gained. We can often find improvements to individual acts of science, but the notion of science as a way to find answers will remain fundamentally unchanged.

 

[Jack21222]

Yes it can.

Example: at one time using equations to describe the world was not how science was done, one day someone came along and used equations in their work, from that day forth science was improved.

Clearly, if a new thing comes along that is successful it will be embraced (sometimes very slowly, especially if it is seen to be contradictory to the paradigm) and then will gradually become part of science, that's one way in which science grows.

I really don't think equations were ever seen as outside of or contradictory to science. At least not since science as we know it came into being. If you're talking about the ancient Greeks, you might have a point...

 

[Pengwuino]

I call troll.

 

[billiards]

We add new things to our knowledge through science.

Science should be thought of as a verb; a process; a method by which knowledge is gained. We can often find improvements to individual acts of science, but the notion of science as a way to find answers will remain fundamentally unchanged.

Of course when I used the word science I was really using it as an alias to mean "the scientific method" -- or perhaps you'd prefer "the way we do science". In that light I don't think you could disagree that the way we do science has evolved and continues to do so, at all levels of enquiry. And yes, I stand by my view that new and fresh angles are needed to drive this process (I'm pretty sure that you could have gathered my meaning given the context of the question).

I really don't think equations were ever seen as outside of or contradictory to science. At least not since science as we know it came into being. If you're talking about the ancient Greeks, you might have a point...

I'm talking about science which has its roots in the philosophical musings of ancients such as the Greeks. At some point the "radical ideas" of those originators must have become separate enough from their roots for us to look back and say "that was science", but in the evolution of science I don't see how those those fresh perspectives and ideas which came about to bear the science we know today are any different in principle to the "radical ideas" we see later down the line which have refined science to the point we have it today. The point being, it took radical ideas to *make science* so I don't think we can say that radical ideas are not important in science.

 

[Jack21222]

so I don't think we can say that radical ideas are not important in science.

This thread isn't about "radical ideas." This thread is about ideas "outside of or contradictory to science."

There are plenty of radical ideas that are part of science. All of the radical ideas I'd find contradictory to science (astrology, for example) are completely worthless.

 

[DaveC426913]

All of the radical ideas I'd find contradictory to science (astrology, for example) are completely worthless.

Yep. Which is why I asked the OP for concrete examples.

 

[Thetom]

Edward de' bono has formulated the process of creative thinking to the point of providing practical tools that help the human mind with creativity. In this context creativity is described as 'movement of idea'.

It works like this: The human mind is an internally organised information system. All the information in your mind is arranged by creating associations with other info in the system. This way you can associate 'apple' with 'pie', 'green' and also 'wasp' (if you have ever been stung by one while eating an apple). This is opposed to an externally organised system that will use an external factor to arrange the information. A dictionary is arranged externally, A,B,C etc.

So, each individual will associate with things differently (though there are commonalities). Movement of idea is the act of creating a new association within your self organising system. Often, movement of ideas can be humorous. In the classic joke "a man walks into a bar" an pre-existing association is highlighted (that men walk into bars often), and then, through the use of provocation, the association is changed. In this case the provocation is the punch line "and says ow" which causes the the different association.

Below is a diagram of that process.

Man
|
|--> Drinks bar
|
|<---[Provocation]
|
|----> Metal Bar (lol)

Hopefully I've explained the main points that information in your noggin is associated with other information in an organic fashion and that new associations are, in essence, new idea. Also that new associations can be teased out by using provocation.

Now back to the original question:

Can solutions to difficult questions within physics be better solved from without?

There is, as pointed out before, the problem with what does the OP mean by 'better' (cheaper? quicker? more spectacular? more profound?) but I would answer a big YES to the question of whether questions within physics can be solved from without.

Take Einstein for example, he was struggling with his theories of relativity. Presumably with his ideas going round and round his head, stuck in his pre-existing associations, until he threw a stone into a pond and saw the ripples which provoked the movement of his current associations into a new idea that helped him develop relativity.

The inspiration for new ideas can come from anywhere, de Bono has laid out the process for this, and more often than not the inspiration for a new idea will come from something external to the original context.

Here's a little practical exercise for you to try: next time you need a new idea for [insert need area here] try taking a book, turning to a random page and picking a random word. Then associate that word with your problem and marvel at the flood of new ideas that follow. Ok, maybe all those new ideas arn't usable, and may seem absurd at the time, but in the business of idea generation quantity is always better than quality. Absurd ideas can often lead to great ones.

 

[Digitalism]

Is there any significant example from history ? I expect a couple of possible answers which I am ready to discuss

Ok, so I'm going to post a lot to try and catch up. Are you thinking of Escher?

The reason many scientif minded people think the way they do, is because that is the way science works. There is ALWAYS a reason that something works the way it works. Some way to describe it mathmatically. The sum of scientific knowledge is so vast and varied, that simple every day questions can seem extremely generalized and inadequate.

That is sort of what I am talking about. Many times, it is beneficial to view things with ambiguity not having one specific answer, but many possible ones. It is also beneficial to view things in contradictory ways simultaneously. Boiling things down to singular answers is only possible under controlled conditions and things behave differently when you remove the complexity from the equation.

I experience this all the time. Many times a friend or co-worker will ask me a question and I will have to ask them to elaborate and give me specifics and details and get them to tell me exactly what they are wanting to know in order to give them a correct answer. Especially questions such as "Which one of these is better?". I usually reply with, "Well, that depends on what you mean as better." And so forth. It frustrates me to no end when people can't understand that many things only mean what they mean when defined a certain way or from a certain point of view.

Maybe they are not looking for a factual answer, but rather a relational answer. What I mean by this is they may be seeking how you relate to them. Whether you like or dislike the thing in question. It helps to relate themselves or distance themselves from you/people "like" you. I think this way of viewing things can be useful in science as well. You can think of mathematics as the study of relationships between different kinds of symbols. Obviously, these relationships are not set in stone as they can be very arbitrary.

(In other words, the wikileaks stuff generally falls under the public domain, not private and so the two aren't analogous.)

They can be analogous as the institutions that are being exposed are composed of people who will really be effected by the information released.

Unless... we just fell into your trap of wanting tasks and results and what not! Oooooo... you got us!

No, I am not trying to play a trick on you or get a rise out of anyone or whatever. I think the sciences/math cannot be seen as in a vacuum. There are commonalities or tendencies between people within those fields. This is not good or bad but, I don't think it can be escaped. Science is relational. What I mean by this is real people have reactions for/against science based on the way they FEEL towards it. They may not even recognize these feelings as such. I think that one reason that many religious people feel threatened by science for example is that it undermines how they view reality. It requires a paradigm shift in thinking that is difficult because it seems to have a lot of emotional/relational implications. If I believe in evolution, how does that change how people react to me at thanksgiving if I voice this view? I think many people within science tend to feel different from others as well. Oftentimes, it can be because they are intelligent and find it hard to relate to those around them because they feel misunderstood. When someone is different from those around them they often tend to exaggerate the disparity to maintain their identity. I think this is especially true when being exposed to scientific thinking through media (books, etc.) rather than through people.

Are you saying that scientific minded people don't seem to "enjoy" or put their emotions into their work?

No, not at all. Rather the opposite I imagine.

If not, sorry. =)

No need to apologize AT ALL. Thank you for voicing your thoughts so openly. One of the the things I fear to do here is to generate stereotypical responses within the people here on this forum or myself. Obviously, some of what I am trying to relay is colored by personal experience as is everything and partially this is going to be self-revelatory about the process I have gone through as an individual and will not resonate with many others. I guess, I am just trying to get across how "outsiders" can respond to scientifically-minded people that I see as a gap in understanding, in lifestyle (and consequently mentally) on both sides. I think in order for science to have more of an impact it is going to have to evolve to become more "open" more approachable without losing the benefits and unique views it currently has.

I don't think someone from outside science can even understand the most difficult questions, let alone give any contribution to solving them, despite the plethora of popular books published on all the most sexy scientific conundra. These books give an most a superficial understanding of anything. The devil is in the details, as they say, which are lacking from any popular source.

One is not going to find a cure for cancer without first understanding organic chemistry; likewise, one is not going to unify gravity and quantum mechanics without first understanding gauge connections and Lie groups.

Yes, as absurd as it may sound I think that is precisely why it is needed. Part of this has to do with the question of what is real and what is not. The thing is reality is a many sided thing and I think it is useful to juxtapose what you "basis" for reality is from time to time. I think initially this can feel scary, like being lost or feeling as if you're falling off of a cliff, but I think once you come out the other end of it you become a richer more varied person who can "understand" more about aspects of reality you did not even recognize as being there. Partially, I think science can be so appealing because it can provide a sense of security. A sense of understanding that can safeguard against fear because "I understand how things REALLY are." It can also provide a sense of superiority. I am better than you because I know more. This is a trap that many people fall into in life in many different ways. It is alienating and actually can make one feel lonely and sad. It removes the person(s) from real connection with their fellow human beings (which to me is essentially what it means to feel god. Here I am referring to something said in another post which referenced this article http://www.6seconds.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=257 ).

Sorry, that's all I have time for now. I will try and clean up the mess I'm sure I've inadvertently created for myself another time.

 

[Jack21222]

Take Einstein for example, he was struggling with his theories of relativity. Presumably with his ideas going round and round his head, stuck in his pre-existing associations, until he threw a stone into a pond and saw the ripples which provoked the movement of his current associations into a new idea that helped him develop relativity.

The inspiration for new ideas can come from anywhere, de Bono has laid out the process for this, and more often than not the inspiration for a new idea will come from something external to the original context.

Are you saying that ripples in a pond are somehow outside of or contradictory to science? In what way? Your post is a lot of words, but I can't make sense of any of it in the context of the OP.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thetom, this is post 34.

No thoughtful person on the planet denies that great discoveries sometimes come from a bolt of inspiration, and that inspiration is not a rational scientific process. (What happens to them after that moment of inspiration is another story.)

Does anyone disagree with this?

Is there more you wish to say on the subject?

 

[Jack21222]

Thetom, this is post 34.

No thoughtful person on the planet denies that great discoveries sometimes come from a bolt of inspiration, and that inspiration is not a rational scientific process. (What happens to them after that moment of inspiration is another story.)

Does anyone disagree with this?

Is there more you wish to say on the subject?

I'd qualify that by saying the bolt of inspiration, while not a scientific process in its own right, is part of the scientific process. In no way would I say that such inspiration is "contradictory to" science, as the first post phrased it.