Outside The Box

Sometimes when the universe presents us with new data it's "inside the box", by which I mean that it is not widely disparate from other data. We can see where it might fit in. We can expand current theories to include the occurrence of the new data.

Sometimes the data is "outside the box", but not so far from other data points that we can't see how to develop a new theory to expand the box and all the possibilities therein. The data may be strange, but it relates to other data, perhaps in unexpected ways. A recent example of that is "dark matter" and "dark energy". While the theories that include "dark matter/energy" are somewhat cloudy, the expansion of the theories about the universe now includes a number of other data points not previously easily included. Clearly such new theories are less certain and will require additional proof and even new theoretical constructs. However, we can imagine in general terms how such constructs might appear and how they will fit in with current theories.

But sometimes the data is very far outside the box. It's so far that it cannot fit in with other theories. They are contradictory to other data points or massive groups of data points. There is no easy theoretical construct that can include them without rebuilding the entire box. When someone "sees a ghost", that data point is so far away from all the others that to include it we need an entirely different view of the universe. The very meaning of the phrase "supernatural" is equivalent to "completely outside the box". Most of the current fads in "new world" thinking fit in this category.

This is not to say that we shouldn't consider rebuilding the entire box. All advancement in science has come from this direction. "Germs" were outside-the-box thinking, and to include them we had to completely reconsider our theories about how bodies worked. Other "outlier" data points could be seen to fit into the new construction, which could then be further expanded.

For data points so far outside the box that we have to rebuild our view of the universe, we should require a higher level of proof. The data points can be mistaken; the "ghost" was a trick of the light or a flare in the lens. Occam's Razor recommends that we find the construct that requires the least change in our view of the universe, that we rebuild the box minimally, if at all. We should see if the data points are truly "out there" or only appear to be out there. We shouldn't accept a change in world view on the basis of a single event. We have to see how the rebuilding of our world view fits with other known data points and theories.

Whatever reconstruction of the universe we may come up with, it must include all the old data points as well, and explain them as well or better than the earlier theories. Many people seem to be comfortable with holding two or more mutually inconsistent approaches. On the one hand, they demand intellectual rigor and theoretical integrity and consistency. On the other they hold absurd and contradictory world-views, based on feeling or “faith”. “Faith” seems to be a poorly-defined word which is used to justify the acceptance as fact of unverifiable and absurd items, as if accepting something unproved and unprovable is some sort of virtue. When people can’t even be consistent with themselves, how can we expect them to be consistent with one another?

I have an acquaintance with a Ph.D., who adheres to scientific rigor in her area of expertise, but at the same time is able to believe in homeopathy, “meridian lines” on the body and extrasensory perception. She is even astonished that I'm unwilling to accept her personal experience as sufficient proof, because personal experience trumps science. Amazing, isn’t it?