Think Outside the Box

We’ve all heard the expression, “think outside the box.” The problem with this concept is that many people do not understand what the box is, much less how to escape this cage.  When we are facing a problem, we use what we already know to determine the solution. The box is the frame of reference, the starting point for deductive reasoning.

When we deduce something, we start with a known point. Deductive reasoning applies logic that moves us from the general to the specific by using known facts, definitions, principles, and properties to reach a conclusion.

The problem with “the box” is quite simple. If you’re starting with what is known and you’re only willing to look at what can be extrapolated from the known, then how do you discover a thing that is not directly relative to the known? The answer to this quandary lies in duality.   

Duality is the concept of equal but opposite. When we identify a thing – an idea, a concept, a principle, or a problem for example, we must be able to then step back and look at the thing we haven’t been looking at. What is the opposite of this thing or this problem?

The scientific method is a problem-solving process. Scientific reasoning dictates that you begin with a hypothesis, a theory whose truth you wish to test. Experiments are designed to test the hypothesis by examining one variable at a time in order to determine whether the theory is correct or incorrect. The scientific method attempts to prove a theory by demonstrating that the theory cannot be disproved. Thus, if the hypothesis is correct than its opposites must be incorrect.

Niels Bohr (1885 – 1962) was a Nobel Prize-winning Danish physicist who was recognized for his contributions to our understanding of atomic structure and quantum mechanics. Bohr said that the   opposite of a correct statement is an incorrect statement, which is classic duality – equal but opposite. However, Bohr seemingly contradicted this principle when he said, “But the opposite of a profound truth is often another profound truth.” These are very unusual words for a scientist, but his thoughts touch on a very big idea.

Bohr was referring to the underlying principles of a truth that are mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive principles are incompatible with one another – they cannot be reconciled. These principles are unable to both be true at the same time - if one is right, the other must be wrong. Yet Bohr says that the opposite of a profound truth is often another profound truth. Can the opposite of something that is right still be right? That depends on which side of your brain you ask.