Poll: Who do you Believe, your Eyes or the Facts?
- Thread starter interspark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Rayleigh scattering The reason the sky is blue, is because blue is a shorter wavelength of light that is easily scattered by individual atoms and molecules, so you actually see more blue in the sky than any other color. Also, why you see the sun as yellow. The eye isn't 'tricking' you it's picking up exactly what is there, it's just that the brain has to understand why certain things are the way they are.interspark said:
Also, the Sun is not true white, the Sun's temperature is at approx. 5780K, actually a slightly peach color. It's close enough to call white for observation though.
That being said, I trust my eyes in some situations, and facts in others. If my eyes seem to tell me something that my brain doesn't believe, then I go try to find out how to make the two agree, or figure out what exactly my eyes did see, and what wasn't seen.
If you're going with facts, one might contend that the sun, and everything else for that matter, doesn't have ANY color. Color is just an abstract value assigned to certain wavelengths of light by our brains when they're creating the model we see of the world in order to help break it down into more distinguishable parts because it's evolutionarily beneficial.
IM NO NPC! although now that you mention i DO have a curious urge to trade my dugtrio for a raichu of yours... (its a 1st gen pokemon joke, dont worry if you dont get it)mad825 said:
your first post has surpirising intelligence and a perfect comeback to my archnemisis!Anthan said:
well played sir!
I believe both with some scepticism for both. Your eyes can be obscured and your brain can misinterpret things, any optical illusion [http://files.sharenator.com/black_dots_optical_illusion_Optical_illusions-s390x325-13679-580.gif] can explain that much.
As for the facts, they may not be reliable either. If seeing is innacurate then it does question how the facts were obtained in the first place. If it was done via experiment then what was the uncertainty? What evidence is there to show that the facts aren't very factual? Are the facts from bias sources or sources with a vested interest? Are there any more rational hypothese which can explain just as much with less assumptions? This leaves space for people to be sceptical about facts and knowledge.
If I really had to choose over a confliction between a fact and whhat I see, I'd end up confused at first. However, I'd probably go for facts over what I see, as that is probably the more certain one. Judging the colour of the sun by looking at it is a stupid thing to do as it damages your eyes, so you're left blind and you would end up with a potentially skewed idea of the sun's colour anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction_of_Prisms_and_the_Spectrum_of_Light#Spectral_colors
It's Wikipedia so take it with some salt.
There are lots of theories about the colours Indigo and Violet in the visible light spectrum. The one that is cited for Wikipedia states that Newton originally had five colours and then added orange and indigo in based off of the number of notes in a musical scale:
Wiki section [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#Distinct_colours]
Once again, take with some salt as noone's actually sure on why Newton chose seven colours, be it religious nutjobs, musical scales or simply a fondness for the number 7.
EDIT: Off-topic (like most of this post, but even more so), but Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon cover only features six colours [http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/pink-floyd-dark-side-of-the-moon-cover.jpg]. Just felt like mentioning that for some reason.
As for the facts, they may not be reliable either. If seeing is innacurate then it does question how the facts were obtained in the first place. If it was done via experiment then what was the uncertainty? What evidence is there to show that the facts aren't very factual? Are the facts from bias sources or sources with a vested interest? Are there any more rational hypothese which can explain just as much with less assumptions? This leaves space for people to be sceptical about facts and knowledge.
If I really had to choose over a confliction between a fact and whhat I see, I'd end up confused at first. However, I'd probably go for facts over what I see, as that is probably the more certain one. Judging the colour of the sun by looking at it is a stupid thing to do as it damages your eyes, so you're left blind and you would end up with a potentially skewed idea of the sun's colour anyway.
Well, there's supposedly no indigo, but there is a cyan between green and blue.spartan231490 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction_of_Prisms_and_the_Spectrum_of_Light#Spectral_colors
It's Wikipedia so take it with some salt.
There are lots of theories about the colours Indigo and Violet in the visible light spectrum. The one that is cited for Wikipedia states that Newton originally had five colours and then added orange and indigo in based off of the number of notes in a musical scale:
Source [http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/newton1.htm]
Wiki section [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#Distinct_colours]
Once again, take with some salt as noone's actually sure on why Newton chose seven colours, be it religious nutjobs, musical scales or simply a fondness for the number 7.
EDIT: Off-topic (like most of this post, but even more so), but Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon cover only features six colours [http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/pink-floyd-dark-side-of-the-moon-cover.jpg]. Just felt like mentioning that for some reason.
