What does the rainbow tell us about objective reality?

[!Kaggen]

Yes, I mean "scientific evidence". And yes, it is "unreasonable" with respect to informal logic to believe a claim like "X exists" without some sort of supporting(scientific) evidence. It might not be "unreasonable" with respect to your opinions about what constitutes evidence.

Not if X is incompatible with the assumptions and methodologies of science in principle, but not incompatible with the assumptions of metaphysics and epistemology. Your position boils down to "scientism is the only reasonable epistemological stance."

ETA: You are free to believe that science is the only means of justifying beliefs, but it is unreasonable to try to impose this belief on other people.




Exactly. And the trouble crops up when one cedes that the proposition is not illogical (in the technical sense--what I've been calling meaning 1) and then they turn around and use it in the everyday sense (meaning "reasonable"--what I've been calling meaning 2).

That's not legitimate argumentation. It's exploiting ambiguity in a dishonest way, and yes, I've seen theists do just that.

It's very similar to the endless "evolution is random" arguments we had here. Yes, in a technical way, evolution is random (there are not predetermined outcomes), but not in the way creationists mean when they talk about the odds of something like the human brain happening randomly (like a wind blowing through a junkyard and assembling parts into a working automobile).

So sometimes the discussion of semantics is needed to clarify matters when someone is playing unfairly with an ambiguity like this.

Bravo. Well put.

If we're going to have an argument about logic (or going to argue complex philosophical matters of any kind) we should know what the words we are using mean. It's pointless (as many a thread here demonstrates) to go on for page after page arguing about "is belief in God logical" or "is evolution random" only to figure out after many heated exchanges that you've just been using the words to mean different things.

Or, to put it another way, there's nothing trivial about semantic arguments. Words are the tools we use to make arguments with. To say that it's "trivial" to discuss those words rather than to directly engage in the arguments is like a woodworker saying that he doesn't need to bother spending time keeping his tools sharp; the really important thing is keep working away at the wood.




But apart from that, a question like "Can X be judged to have certain subjective qualities? For instance, can it be rated as superior to Y and Z?" can only be meaningfully answered in the context of a specific pre-existing system of thought designed by the exact purpose of comparing and contrasting items in the set of X to items in the set of Y and of Z, and then of ranking items in the three sets against each other. Then, there's no logical inconsistency in saying, "Yes, X is #1, Y is #2, and Z is #3", because everything has been judged according to the rules that were previously set up. Clearly, however, these judgments are correct only in relation to this specific system which judges according to this set of rules. :)

And by definition, that set of rules is accessible to science.

Saying "there are questions that cannot be answered by science" is equivalent to saying "there are judgments that cannot be made according to any set of rules."

And that is clearly nonsense, because a judgement by definition is made according to a set of rules.

The real issue here -- and note that it has always been thus -- is that people like UE equivocate their lack of ability to articulate such a set of rules with the non-existence of such a set. That is a fallacy, whether they realize it or not.

Also, note that this fallacy is certainly at the center of the dividing line between dualists and monists, and probably the one between most theists and atheists.


There appears to much disagreements in this forum about the concepts

epistemology
metaphysics
logic
reason
rational
science
the scientific method
scientific consensus
objectivity
subjectivity
judgments
belief
faith
subject (observer)
object (observed)
set of rules
meaning


I have quoted above some recent exchanges in the "Why don't you believe in God" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150587) thread and "Is holding an unjustified belief illogical" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150218) thread to highlight the use of some of these concepts.

I believe the origin of many of the disagreements was alluded to by rocketdodger in the last quote above about the dualism/monism distinction and UE in his reference to scientism. For some clarity I have included the wiki entries on these concepts below and included the wiki entry on positivism in science.

From monism wiki entry


Materialistic monism

Materialistic monism (or monistic materialism) is the philosophical concept which sees the unity of matter in its globality. For the materialistic monist the cosmos is “one” and comprehensive, then a “one-all” made up of parts such as its effects. The matter is then originary and cause of all reality.


From dualism wiki entry

In philosophy of science

In philosophy of science, dualism often refers to the dichotomy between the "subject" (the observer) and the "object" (the observed). Criticism of Western science may label this kind of dualism as a flaw in the nature of science itself. In part, this has something to do with potentially complicated interactions between the subject and the object, of the sort discussed in the social construction literature.[citation needed] another dualism, in Popperian in philosophy of science refers to "hypothesis" and "refutation" (e.g. experimental refutation). This notion also carried to Popper's political philosophy.


From scientism wiki entry


To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[3] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience".[6][7] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[8][9]


From positivism wiki entry

Positivism in science today

See also: Constructive empiricism

The key features of positivism as of the 1950s, as defined in the "received view"[13], are:

1. A focus on science as a product, a linguistic or numerical set of statements;
2. A concern with axiomatization, that is, with demonstrating the logical structure and coherence of these statements;
3. An insistence on at least some of these statements being testable, that is amenable to being verified, confirmed, or falsified by the empirical observation of reality; statements that would, by their nature, be regarded as untestable included the teleological; (Thus positivism rejects much of classical metaphysics.)
4. The belief that science is markedly cumulative;
5. The belief that science is predominantly transcultural;
6. The belief that science rests on specific results that are dissociated from the personality and social position of the investigator;
7. The belief that science contains theories or research traditions that are largely commensurable;
8. The belief that science sometimes incorporates new ideas that are discontinuous from old ones;
9. The belief that science involves the idea of the unity of science, that there is, underlying the various scientific disciplines, basically one science about one real world.

Positivism is also depicted as "the view that all true knowledge is scientific,"[14] and that all things are ultimately measurable. Positivism is closely related to reductionism, in that both involve the view that "entities of one kind... are reducible to entities of another,"[14] such as societies to numbers, or mental events to chemical events. It also involves the contention that "processes are reducible to physiological, physical or chemical events,"[14] and even that "social processes are reducible to relationships between and actions of individuals,"[14] or that "biological organisms are reducible to physical systems."[14]



My thoughts on these disagreements began after KingMerv00 posted this

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4991374#post4991374

on the "Why don't you believe in God" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150587) thread.

Please follow my rainbow analogy further on this thread.

With reference to the title of this post I use the concept "objective reality" in the common sense of everyday life. The relationship of this concept to "scientific objectivity" becomes apparent through the rainbow analogy.

For further reference I have added the entry in wiki related to the philosophical problem of "scientific objectivity" as outlined by Thomas Kuhn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

Philosophical problems with scientific objectivity

Based on a historical review of the development of certain scientific theories, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions scientist and historian Thomas Kuhn raised some philosophical objections to claims of the possibility of scientific understanding being truly objective. In Kuhn's analysis, scientists in different disciplines organise themselves into de facto paradigms, within which scientific research is done, junior scientists are educated, and scientific problems are determined. The implicit social hierarchy of a scientific paradigm ensures that only scientists who are thoroughly immersed in the intellectual construction of the paradigm acquire the reputation and status to pronounce authoritatively on matters of dispute, and those scientists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (which confers on them this de facto position of authority).

When observational data arises which appears to contradict or "falsify" a given scientific paradigm, scientists within that paradigm have not, historically, immediately rejected the paradigm in question (as Sir Karl Popper's philosophical theory of falsificationism would have them do) but have gone to considerable lengths to resolve the apparent conflict without rejecting the paradigm, through ad hoc variations to the theory, sympathetic interpretations of the data which allow for assimilation, determination that the "conundrum" the data was obtained to explain in the first place is misconceived, or in extreme cases simply ignoring the data altogether (for example, on the basis of the lack of scientific credentials of its source).

Thus, Kuhn argues, the failure of a scientific revolution is not an objectively measurable, deterministic event, but a far more contingent shift in social order. A paradigm will go into a crisis when a significant portion of the scientists working in the field lose confidence in the paradigm, regardless of their reasons for doing so. The corollary of this observation is that the primacy of a given paradigm is similarly contingent on the social order amongst scientists at the time it gains ascendancy.

Kuhn's theory has been criticised (by Richard Dawkins and Alan Sokal, among others) as presenting a profoundly relativist view of scientific progress. In a postscript to the third edition of his book, Kuhn denied being a relativist.




Personally I do not think that either the relativist in contrast to absolutist view or the many variations in between are useful in coming to agreements on these concepts. They all require "a priori synthetic judgments" as starting points, which are pre-suppositions. Empirical knowledge for me is what defines "objective reality", not reason or logic. Reason and logic are equivalent to our sense organs in this regard, the results of which should be treated empirically like all other sense data.

[alfaniner]

its pretty

[!Kaggen]

its pretty

why are rainbows pretty?

[Dave Rogers]

I know very little about epistemiology, dualism, monism and positivism. However, I know quite a bit about optics. If you give me your exact position and the position of the sun, and I know that there's a region containing water droplets in the required range of directions, I can predict exactly where you will perceive a rainbow. That's not a democratic agreement, it's a falsifiable prediction.

The fact that I can't see exactly the same thing as you, from a different point of view, is irrelevant. Suppose we're standing on opposite sides of a house, the side facing you is green, and the side facing me is red. Is there a contradiction in the fact that you see a green house and I see a red house? No. Objects seen from different points of view have different appearances; optical phenomena seen from different points of view have different appearances.

Now, let's look at KingMerv00's statement: "Accurate objective statements are true regardless of the observer."

I can make an accurate objective statement regarding the wavelength distribution of scattered light from the water droplets to your eye, in terms of the perceived colour of the light you observe as a function solely of the angle between you and a line connecting the centre of the sun to the centre of your eye, should you choose to observe it, that is true regardless of who or what you are. I can make the same observation in a different place, and find that the angular distribution of wavelength is exactly the same. Since this phenomenon is referred to as a rainbow, we can conclude that rainbows have objective reality.

In short, rainbows are objectively real. They're an optical phenomenon, so it isn't surprising that their properties are different to physical objects, but we can describe those properties exactly and predict their behaviour. That conforms to any rational definition of objective reality.

Dave

[!Kaggen]

I know very little about epistemiology, dualism, monism and positivism. However, I know quite a bit about optics. If you give me your exact position and the position of the sun, and I know that there's a region containing water droplets in the required range of directions, I can predict exactly where you will perceive a rainbow. That's not a democratic agreement, it's a falsifiable prediction.

Hmm, so what data would you require about my position and the position of the sun?

The fact that I can't see exactly the same thing as you, from a different point of view, is irrelevant. Suppose we're standing on opposite sides of a house, the side facing you is green, and the side facing me is red. Is there a contradiction in the fact that you see a green house and I see a red house? No. Objects seen from different points of view have different appearances; optical phenomena seen from different points of view have different appearances.

I am in total agreement with you.


Now, let's look at KingMerv00's statement: "Accurate objective statements are true regardless of the observer."

I can make an accurate objective statement regarding the wavelength distribution of scattered light from the water droplets to your eye, in terms of the perceived colour of the light you observe as a function solely of the angle between you and a line connecting the centre of the sun to the centre of your eye, should you choose to observe it, that is true regardless of who or what you are. I can make the same observation in a different place, and find that the angular distribution of wavelength is exactly the same. Since this phenomenon is referred to as a rainbow, we can conclude that rainbows have objective reality.

Huh, an observation without an observer! Please explain I am curious how you do this.


In short, rainbows are objectively real. They're an optical phenomenon, so it isn't surprising that their properties are different to physical objects, but we can describe those properties exactly and predict their behaviour. That conforms to any rational definition of objective reality.

Dave

So your hypothesis is that rainbows can be observed without an observer and therefore they are an objective reality. Not sure this is testable. It might be rational though I give you that.

Mine is that because we can collect sufficiently large numbers of observable data in many different locations under similar conditions which correspond statistically to each other as to what a rainbow looks like, a rainbow is an objective reality. I believe this is testable.

[Dave Rogers]

Hmm, so what data would you require about my position and the position of the sun?

Your position relative to the sun. I'm not sure what other data one could envisage.

Huh, an observation without an observer! Please explain I am curious how you do this.

Since I haven't said any such thing, I can't give you an explanation of what I didn't say. "Should you choose to observe it" clearly assumes the existence of you as an observer.

So your hypothesis is that rainbows can be observed without an observer and therefore they are an objective reality.

No. My hypothesis is that the properties of rainbows can be predicted, and observations will conform to these predictions.

If your purpose here is to misquote and misrepresent, then to refute your own misrepresentation, then I suggest you look up "strawman fallacy".

Dave

[!Kaggen]

Hmm, so what data would you require about my position and the position of the sun?

Your position relative to the sun. I'm not sure what other data one could envisage.

To predict the "exact" location of a rainbow I am looking at. You would need the exact position of my eyes and the sun. You would also require the exact position of the water droplets. You would also need to know in fact which eye was doing the looking. This excludes the fact that the brain only uses the neurotransmission from one eye, normally the right one in right handed people, for the visual content and the other eyes neurotransmission for the depth perception. I am not sure this is actually possible.

From this website http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/

"Do two people ever see the same rainbow?" Humphreys points out that "since the rainbow is a special distribution of colors (produced in a particular way) with reference to a definite point - the eye of the observer - and as no single distribution can be the same for two separate points, it follows that two observers do not, and cannot, see the same rainbow." In fact, each eye sees its own rainbow!!

Huh, an observation without an observer! Please explain I am curious how you do this.

Since I haven't said any such thing, I can't give you an explanation of what I didn't say. "Should you choose to observe it" clearly assumes the existence of you as an observer.


I can make an accurate objective statement regarding the wavelength distribution of scattered light from the water droplets to your eye, in terms of the perceived colour of the light you observe as a function solely of the angle between you and a line connecting the centre of the sun to the centre of your eye, should you choose to observe it, that is true regardless of who or what you are

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but that is what I understood from the bold portion of your post above. That it is an observation even if I do not choose to observe it.

So your hypothesis is that rainbows can be observed without an observer and therefore they are an objective reality.

No. My hypothesis is that the properties of rainbows can be predicted, and observations will conform to these predictions.


See above about predicting a rainbows exact position.
I do not see how any observations will confirm your proposed prediction of a rainbows exact position..

[IMST]

I do not see how any observations will confirm your proposed prediction of a rainbows exact position..

Seriously? I'll try to use small words.
1. make prediction.
2. make an observation relevant to the prediction
3. note the presence and location of rainbow
4. Is the rainbow where it was predicted to be? if yes,
5. prediction confirmed.

[quarky]

Rainbows are harmless?

[Soapy Sam]

I have photos of rainbows.
They look real to me.
They take up real hard drive space.

[Dave Rogers]

To predict the "exact" location of a rainbow I am looking at. You would need the exact position of my eyes and the sun. You would also require the exact position of the water droplets. You would also need to know in fact which eye was doing the looking. This excludes the fact that the brain only uses the neurotransmission from one eye, normally the right one in right handed people, for the visual content and the other eyes neurotransmission for the depth perception. I am not sure this is actually possible.

This doesn't actually make any sense, because you're missing a fundamental property of a rainbow: it doesn't have a location. It only has a dependence of wavelength on direction. As a result, I don't need to know where the water droplets are, as long as they're in the right direction. I don't need to know where your eye is. I don't need to know where the sun is. Everything can be specified as an angle to the line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the eye with which you're viewing the rainbow. Depth perception won't come into it, because the rainbow doesn't have a spatial location.

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but that is what I understood from the bold portion of your post above. That it is an observation even if I do not choose to observe it.

No. The prediction of your observation is invariant. If you choose to observe the rainbow, it will agree with the prediction.

See above about predicting a rainbows exact position.
I do not see how any observations will confirm your proposed prediction of a rainbows exact position..

The "exact position" of a rainbow is a meaningless concept. Until you understand why this is, you'll never understand rainbows, and hence they will be unable to tell you anything about objective reality.

Dave

[!Kaggen]

To predict the "exact" location of a rainbow I am looking at. You would need the exact position of my eyes and the sun. You would also require the exact position of the water droplets. You would also need to know in fact which eye was doing the looking. This excludes the fact that the brain only uses the neurotransmission from one eye, normally the right one in right handed people, for the visual content and the other eyes neurotransmission for the depth perception. I am not sure this is actually possible.

This doesn't actually make any sense, because you're missing a fundamental property of a rainbow: it doesn't have a location.

[QUOTE=Dave Rogers]If you give me your exact position and the position of the sun, and I know that there's a region containing water droplets in the required range of directions, I can predict exactly where you will perceive a rainbow.
You said above you could predict "exactly where" now you say, it doesn't have a location. :confused:

It only has a dependence of wavelength on direction. As a result, I don't need to know where the water droplets are, as long as they're in the right direction. I don't need to know where your eye is. I don't need to know where the sun is. Everything can be specified as an angle to the line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the eye with which you're viewing the rainbow. Depth perception won't come into it, because the rainbow doesn't have a spatial location.

See above

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but that is what I understood from the bold portion of your post above. That it is an observation even if I do not choose to observe it.

No. The prediction of your observation is invariant. If you choose to observe the rainbow, it will agree with the prediction.

That may be, but I am not talking about a prediction, but an observation when I say "I see a rainbow".

See above about predicting a rainbows exact position.
I do not see how any observations will confirm your proposed prediction of a rainbows exact position..

The "exact position" of a rainbow is a meaningless concept. Until you understand why this is, you'll never understand rainbows, and hence they will be unable to tell you anything about objective reality.


My point exactly.
Rainbows are objective realities not because of an a priori prediction, but because of observations of which we can all agree on. Otherwise anyone without your knowledge of optics would not be able to say rainbows are objective realities.

[!Kaggen]

Seriously? I'll try to use small words.
1. make prediction.
2. make an observation relevant to the prediction
3. note the presence and location of rainbow
4. Is the rainbow where it was predicted to be? if yes,
5. prediction confirmed.

See Dave's post below on the exact position of a rainbow
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4996887#post4996887

[!Kaggen]

I have photos of rainbows.
They look real to me.
They take up real hard drive space.

Yep, photo's are good empirical evidence in my book

[~enigma~]

What does the rainbow tell us....ROYGBIV :)

[Dave Rogers]

You said above you could predict "exactly where" now you say, it doesn't have a location. :confused:

Shorthand. I can predict in what directions you will observe which colours. To have a specific position, a rainbow would have to be defined by direction and distance from the observer. Since its distance is meaningless, it has no location.

The answer to your question, as far as I can tell, is that rainbows in themselves don't tell us anything new about objective reality. They can be observed, their properties can be analysed and predicted, and the predicted observation depends on the location but not the nature of the observer. One could say the same about, for example, bricks.

Dave

[!Kaggen]

Shorthand. I can predict in what directions you will observe which colours. To have a specific position, a rainbow would have to be defined by direction and distance from the observer. Since its distance is meaningless, it has no location.

I am not sure what you mean by its distance is meaningless
again from the website http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/

"What is the rainbow's distance?" It is nearby or far away, according to where the raindrops are, extending from the closest to the farthest illuminated drops along the elements of the rainbow cone.

The answer to your question, as far as I can tell, is that rainbows in themselves don't tell us anything new about objective reality. They can be observed, their properties can be analysed and predicted, and the predicted observation depends on the location but not the nature of the observer. One could say the same about, for example, bricks.


I was not using the rainbow analogy to say something new about objective reality, only as a useful analogy to understand what objective reality might be.

To be more specific.
I used the rainbow as a relatively easy, though you did make it relatively hard ;), way of getting to a point.
Your analogy with bricks or for that matter anything we could regard as objective reality is spot on.

My point is that all of objective reality are "collective representations".

Representations, because like the rainbow which we see as an obvious optical phenomena the bricks, that we observe and which physics teaches us are ultimately made of non-visual particles we cannot see, are also in a sense optical phenomena. This is especially true from what we know about physiology and the conversion of light photons in the eye to electro-chemical signals and further split into different signals. In other words not much is left of the original visual field.

Collective, because we can collectively observe, analyze and predict the properties of a rainbow and a brick without disagreement.

Why is this important to realize?

I believe it is important because as I mentioned in the OP the disagreements I find on this forum boil down to "what is knowledge?".
This question is not adequately addressed.
And when it skimmed over, pre-suppositions which can be called "a priori synthetic judgments" creep in such as:

"The universe obeys a set of rules"
"that set of rules is accessible to science"
"Accurate objective statements are true regardless of the observer. They are truths to which we are all bound."

This is unfortunate and unnecessary and gives science a bad name and those purporting these judgments are accused of scientism since they believe it "is the only reasonable epistemological stance".

It is however "unreasonable to try to impose this belief on other people".

[JFrankA]

Here's my question:

Why are there so many songs about rainbows?
And what's on the other side?

[Aepervius]

Some people here are quite clearly missing the point to concentrate on useless details, IMHO... Hopefully they are not doing that intentionally.

The main point, I think, being that the observation of a phenomenon is independant of the observer nature, be the observer a human or a particle used as a probe, or even a receptor, and human can even be not involved at all not even be aware of anything going on.

[Lucian]

Here's my question:

Why are there so many songs about rainbows?
And what's on the other side?

Kansas.

[Yoink]

I am not sure what you mean by its distance is meaningless
again from the website http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/

"What is the rainbow's distance?" It is nearby or far away, according to where the raindrops are, extending from the closest to the farthest illuminated drops along the elements of the rainbow cone.



I was not using the rainbow analogy to say something new about objective reality, only as a useful analogy to understand what objective reality might be.

To be more specific.
I used the rainbow as a relatively easy, though you did make it relatively hard ;), way of getting to a point.
Your analogy with bricks or for that matter anything we could regard as objective reality is spot on.

My point is that all of objective reality are "collective representations".

Representations, because like the rainbow which we see as an obvious optical phenomena the bricks, that we observe and which physics teaches us are ultimately made of non-visual particles we cannot see, are also in a sense optical phenomena. This is especially true from what we know about physiology and the conversion of light photons in the eye to electro-chemical signals and further split into different signals. In other words not much is left of the original visual field.

Collective, because we can collectively observe, analyze and predict the properties of a rainbow and a brick without disagreement.

Why is this important to realize?

I believe it is important because as I mentioned in the OP the disagreements I find on this forum boil down to "what is knowledge?".
This question is not adequately addressed.
And when it skimmed over, pre-suppositions which can be called "a priori synthetic judgments" creep in such as:

"The universe obeys a set of rules"
"that set of rules is accessible to science"
"Accurate objective statements are true regardless of the observer. They are truths to which we are all bound."

This is unfortunate and unnecessary and gives science a bad name and those purporting these judgments are accused of scientism since they believe it "is the only reasonable epistemological stance".

It is however "unreasonable to try to impose this belief on other people".
!Kaggen, I don't understand the argument you're trying to make here. Are you trying to advance a roughly pragmatist view of "objective reality"? I.e., objective reality is what we all agree it to be in practice?

I admit I'm really baffled as to what the optical qualities of rainbows has to do with such an argument. I wonder if you'd mind trying to spell out your essential point as simply as possible.

One thing you might like to address is how you think it possible to make sense of the universe at all in the absence of what you describe--in Kantian terms--as "synthetic a priori judgments." You are, I assume, aware of Hume's argument that it is impossible to prove the relationship of cause to effect, right? It seems to me that the world dissipates into meaninglessness without the unprovable assumption of certain a priori conditions (the persistence of object identity, causality, the directionality of time etc.). None of these can be established "empirically" because we cannot have an "empirical" experience without them.

[Yoink]

Some people here are quite clearly missing the point to concentrate on useless details, IMHO... Hopefully they are not doing that intentionally.

The main point, I think, being that the observation of a phenomenon is independant of the observer nature, be the observer a human or a particle used as a probe, or even a receptor, and human can even be not involved at all not even be aware of anything going on.

If that's the point, it's odd to use rainbows as the example to get that point across. Rainbows exist solely as a phenomenon of 'observation.' That is, without a properly constituted observer, there is no rainbow.

[paximperium]

Here's my question:

Why are there so many songs about rainbows?
And what's on the other side?
Rainbows are visions, they're only illusions and rainbows have nothing to hide.
So we've been told and some chose to believe it.

But I know they're wrong, just wait and see.

[Jungle Jim]

Here's a picture of a rainbow I came across today (just thought I'd add a visual):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32336892/ns/entertainment-picture_stories/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1&beginChapter=1&beginTab=1#

#8

[Beerina]

What does the rainbow tell us....ROYGBIV :)

There is no I in team, I mean ROYGBV. :)

[JFrankA]

Rainbows are visions, they're only illusions and rainbows have nothing to hide.
So we've been told and some chose to believe it.

But I know they're wrong, just wait and see.

Someday we'll find it,
The Rainbow Connection,
The lovers, the dreamers and me.



errr us...



P.S. Thanks, Paximperium :D

[paximperium]

Someday we'll find it,
The Rainbow Connection,
The lovers, the dreamers and me.



errr us...



P.S. Thanks, Paximperium :D
You can be my Kermit anyday.

[quarky]

You guys just had to chew all the fun out of a rainbow, didn't you.
And spit it out.

What a bunch of romantics.

Hey, there's a meteor shower tonight! Perseids. No wishing on them, please, for they aren't even falling stars, and wishing is wooish nonsense.

If I ever get to see major Northern Lights, I sure hope there's no scientists there to explain the perceptual phenomena. I've read up on that, but I'm after an "Oh, wow!" moment.

A rainbow is a good sign. rare, beautiful, unpredictable, at least compared to an eclipse.
The sight of one makes people happier. Its a good, yet silly thing.
The kind you make with a garden hose don't count, although those are cool, too, in their own way.

[Elizabeth I]

Here's my question:

Why are there so many songs about rainbows?
And what's on the other side?

And where's my gold?

There is no I in team, I mean ROYGBV. :)

Indigo. "Green, blue, indigo, violet." :)

[Lucian]

You guys just had to chew all the fun out of a rainbow, didn't you.
And spit it out.

What a bunch of romantics.

Hey, there's a meteor shower tonight! Perseids. No wishing on them, please, for they aren't even falling stars, and wishing is wooish nonsense.

If I ever get to see major Northern Lights, I sure hope there's no scientists there to explain the perceptual phenomena. I've read up on that, but I'm after an "Oh, wow!" moment.

A rainbow is a good sign. rare, beautiful, unpredictable, at least compared to an eclipse.
The sight of one makes people happier. Its a good, yet silly thing.
The kind you make with a garden hose don't count, although those are cool, too, in their own way.

Oh sure, rainbows look all innocent and pretty, but who's behind all these rainbows near the ground, huh? It's a conspiracy, I tells ya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9gRFv5Kgc

[Robin]

Personally I do not think that either the relativist in contrast to absolutist view or the many variations in between are useful in coming to agreements on these concepts. They all require "a priori synthetic judgments" as starting points, which are pre-suppositions. Empirical knowledge for me is what defines "objective reality", not reason or logic. Reason and logic are equivalent to our sense organs in this regard, the results of which should be treated empirically like all other sense data.
I more or less agree with this last.

And this is more or less the modern philosophy of science - if any reason or logic disagrees with experimental results in science then that reason or logic must be in need of rethinking.

[quarky]

Oh sure, rainbows look all innocent and pretty, but who's behind all these rainbows near the ground, huh? It's a conspiracy, I tells ya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9gRFv5Kgc

she is special

[Aepervius]

If that's the point, it's odd to use rainbows as the example to get that point across. Rainbows exist solely as a phenomenon of 'observation.' That is, without a properly constituted observer, there is no rainbow.

In physic an observer and the action of observing is not solely the province of human being.

[Dave Rogers]

I am not sure what you mean by its distance is meaningless
again from the website http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/

"What is the rainbow's distance?" It is nearby or far away, according to where the raindrops are, extending from the closest to the farthest illuminated drops along the elements of the rainbow cone.

I don't agree with that quote. The rainbow itself is not a localised phenomenon. The droplets whose optical properties cause the rainbow have a location, but the rainbow itself does not. It certainly is not localised in the same place as the droplets causing it. Try creating a rainbow using a hosepipe with a diffuser nozzle, so that the droplets are very close to you; you'll notice that your eyes need to focus at infinity to observe the rainbow most clearly, even if the droplets are close enough that you need to focus closer than infinity to see them sharply. Since the rainbow itself appears at infinity, and appears to move laterally as you shift your viewpoint, it's meaningless to equate its position with that of the droplets causing it.

The rest of your post, I'm not philosopher enough to comment on.

Oh, and Quarky: I find the understanding behind the causes of a rainbow not one bit less fascinating, exciting and beautiful than the rainbow itself. In fact, the optics are so involved and counter-intuitive, they have a romance of their own.

Dave

[Yoink]

In physic an observer and the action of observing is not solely the province of human being.

See any reference to "human beings" in my post? I said "a properly constituted observer."

[Dr Adequate]

why are rainbows pretty? Why are cockroaches ugly?

[!Kaggen]

why are rainbows pretty?
Why are cockroaches ugly?
Why do you love me?

[!Kaggen]

If that's the point, it's odd to use rainbows as the example to get that point across. Rainbows exist solely as a phenomenon of 'observation.' That is, without a properly constituted observer, there is no rainbow.
And a brick?

[!Kaggen]

It seems to me that the world dissipates into meaninglessness without the unprovable assumption of certain a priori conditions

Of course that's why you need an unprovable assumption. Luckily for me meaninglessness is a condition I am comfortable with. Of course we cannot ever really know what it might be, but if we try hard we can get a sense of it.

[Dr Adequate]

Why do you love me? I don't. This is something that you have in common with cockroaches.

Would you like to try to base your argument on some other premise?

[!Kaggen]

If that's the point,
No its not the point. The point is to illustrate how the concept "rainbow" is like all other concepts e.g. "brick, causality ". These concepts have a unique relationship to humans in that we produce them.

[slingblade]

No its not the point. The point is to illustrate how the concept "rainbow" is like all other concepts e.g. "brick, causality ". These concepts have a unique relationship to humans in that we produce them.

:eek:

[!Kaggen]

:eek:

Don't be alarmed, Read carefully.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concept
a general notion or idea

[Dancing David]

No its not the point. The point is to illustrate how the concept "rainbow" is like all other concepts e.g. "brick, causality ". These concepts have a unique relationship to humans in that we produce them.


The concepts yes, whatever they are , no.

[Yoink]

Luckily for me meaninglessness is a condition I am comfortable with.

Hence this thread, I take it?

[quarky]

[/I]

I don't agree with that quote. The rainbow itself is not a localised phenomenon. The droplets whose optical properties cause the rainbow have a location, but the rainbow itself does not. It certainly is not localised in the same place as the droplets causing it. Try creating a rainbow using a hosepipe with a diffuser nozzle, so that the droplets are very close to you; you'll notice that your eyes need to focus at infinity to observe the rainbow most clearly, even if the droplets are close enough that you need to focus closer than infinity to see them sharply. Since the rainbow itself appears at infinity, and appears to move laterally as you shift your viewpoint, it's meaningless to equate its position with that of the droplets causing it.

The rest of your post, I'm not philosopher enough to comment on.

Oh, and Quarky: I find the understanding behind the causes of a rainbow not one bit less fascinating, exciting and beautiful than the rainbow itself. In fact, the optics are so involved and counter-intuitive, they have a romance of their own.

Dave

Me too, Dave. Just not when you're watching one. Worse is when people obsess about capturing the moment, and must fuss with gadgets, and mostly miss the mindless awe of it. Its kind of like watching a movie with someone explaining how the stunts are done.

color me hippy, I'm used to people not wanting to learn science, so I have to squelch my gut reactions. the flip side is when they get pushy about woo or religion, and I get squirmy.

[slingblade]

Don't be alarmed, Read carefully.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concept
a general notion or idea

My god, you are so awesome! Like...like all three of the Jonas Brothers in just the one body!

I'm going to worship you, now.

[Yoink]

No its not the point. The point is to illustrate how the concept "rainbow" is like all other concepts e.g. "brick, causality ". These concepts have a unique relationship to humans in that we produce them.

So are you saying that the molecules that comprise the object that we call "a brick" don't exist without us or that the concept of "brickness" doesn't exist without us? Because the second is self evidently true and the first is self evidently false; although, by definition, not demonstrably so.

[quarky]

When you die, the universe dies.

[Dave Rogers]

When you die, the universe dies.

Should that be "When I die, the universe dies," or are you a solipsist by proxy?

Dave

[paximperium]

Should that be "When I die, the universe dies," or are you a solipsist by proxy?

Dave
As the one true solipcist, when I die, you all die with me BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

[HansMustermann]

No its not the point. The point is to illustrate how the concept "rainbow" is like all other concepts e.g. "brick, causality ". These concepts have a unique relationship to humans in that we produce them.

Huh? That's pretty silly. The fact that humans gave it a name, doesn't mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist without humans or anything. A camera sees that diffraction just as well. And objectively frequency X goes at angle Y.

Basically IMHO you seem to grossly misunderstand what "objective" and "subjective" even means. "Subjective" doesn't mean "humans gave it a name". It means, depending which meaning you take, "it's in your mind" or "it isn't the same for different people, at different times, or in different places."

Gravity is objective, for example, even if humans needed so many millenia to figure out the concept. The planets still had the same orbits long before humans existed, stones still fell, and black holes still accretted matter.

A brick would still be a brick even if humans ceassed to exist, and it will be a brick tomorrow too, and it'll still be a brick if you put it in a pack and mail it to China.

Causality, ditto, exists just as well even without humans around. Cause-effect relationships still apply even where there are no humans to notice them. E.g., we see now phenomena from the other end of the observable universe, which happened billions of years before any humans existed, and causality works just the same. Those supernovas still happen when the conditions are fulfilled, not randomly.

And ditto for rainbows. The same pattern of diffraction existed long before humans existed, or before anything had eyes to see it.

[!Kaggen]

So are you saying that the molecules that comprise the object that we call "a brick" don't exist without us or that the concept of "brickness" doesn't exist without us? Because the second is self evidently true and the first is self evidently false; although, by definition, not demonstrably so.
the second. The concept "brick" is the what we agree on. Not the first.
Even the bricks made of particles is not what we see. But the concept "particulate brick" is what we agree on.
A third premise: The percept "brick" exists.
A fourth premise: Logical thinking is a proof

Transcendental idealism claims the first, by beginning with the third only to refute it later.
Naive realism claims the third, by using the second only to refute it later.
Naive rationalism claims the second, using the fourth not realizing logic proves nothing outside of logic.

None of these approaches are useful for a critical analysis of cognition as they all stem from the inability to grasp the process of cognition without jumping to conclusions which are themselves the product of cognition. Metacognition or thinking about thinking is what is required.

We all start from the naive realism point of view, that the world exists independently of ourselves. Otherwise if we created the world ourselves we would have no need of gaining knowledge of the world since we created it in the first place. However on further reflection we realize that we contribute concepts in order to structure and communicate our experience of the world as representations.
We cannot avoid this as a result of physics and physiology. No matter the observer free scientific method. We cannot avoid the observer contribution of concepts to reality if we are to communicate anything. It is simply a leap of faith to pronounce objects independent of an observer. As to the observer not needing to be human. This is just a self convincing argument as knowledge always consists of a conceptual part as well as a perceptual part. The conceptual part humans contribute and the perceptual is given. The fact that an artificial eye might perceive something is irrelevant until that something is defined using concepts. Talking about the unrepresented is an exercise in futility, much like theism.

[HansMustermann]

And again, the fact that you organize the world as a hierarchy of concepts, doesn't mean it's subjective.

Yes, so the police files me in one way, the tax office in another way, my doctor in a third way, etc. But the fact is, I'm still me. That organizing by kinds of patients or by tax bracket doesn't make it subjective. It's just one way to organize what's already there.

We all start from the naive realism point of view, that the world exists independently of ourselves. Otherwise if we created the world ourselves we would have no need of gaining knowledge of the world since we created it in the first place. However on further reflection we realize that we contribute concepts in order to structure and communicate our experience of the world as representations.
We cannot avoid this as a result of physics and physiology. No matter the observer free scientific method. We cannot avoid the observer contribution of concepts to reality if we are to communicate anything. It is simply a leap of faith to pronounce objects independent of an observer. As to the observer not needing to be human. This is just a self convincing argument as knowledge always consists of a conceptual part as well as a perceptual part. The conceptual part humans contribute and the perceptual is given. The fact that an artificial eye might perceive something is irrelevant until that something is defined using concepts. Talking about the unrepresented is an exercise in futility, much like theism.

Please spare me the condescending tone and the qualifiers like "naive" or the comparisons with theism. If you have an actual argument to make, make it, otherwise it don't impress me much.

[!Kaggen]

And again, the fact that you organize the world as a hierarchy of concepts, doesn't mean it's subjective.

When I did I say it is subjective? Only that it takes a human being to do this.

Yes, so the police files me in one way, the tax office in another way, my doctor in a third way, etc. But the fact is, I'm still me. That organizing by kinds of patients or by tax bracket doesn't make it subjective. It's just one way to organize what's already there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_realism


Please spare me the condescending tone and the qualifiers like "naive" or the comparisons with theism. If you have an actual argument to make, make it, otherwise it don't impress me much.

Say what? I was not addressing you in this post
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5007506#post5007506

Seeing that you feel important.
Lets deal with your post below.

Huh? That's pretty silly. The fact that humans gave it a name, doesn't mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist without humans or anything. A camera sees that diffraction just as well. And objectively frequency X goes at angle Y.

Basically IMHO you seem to grossly misunderstand what "objective" and "subjective" even means. "Subjective" doesn't mean "humans gave it a name". It means, depending which meaning you take, "it's in your mind" or "it isn't the same for different people, at different times, or in different places."

Gravity is objective, for example, even if humans needed so many millenia to figure out the concept. The planets still had the same orbits long before humans existed, stones still fell, and black holes still accretted matter.

A brick would still be a brick even if humans ceassed to exist, and it will be a brick tomorrow too, and it'll still be a brick if you put it in a pack and mail it to China.

Causality, ditto, exists just as well even without humans around. Cause-effect relationships still apply even where there are no humans to notice them. E.g., we see now phenomena from the other end of the observable universe, which happened billions of years before any humans existed, and causality works just the same. Those supernovas still happen when the conditions are fulfilled, not randomly.

And ditto for rainbows. The same pattern of diffraction existed long before humans existed, or before anything had eyes to see it.

In case you did not realize it you are using language to communicate this dribble above.
If you are insisting that language existed before and without humans, I suggest you re-consider the evidence.

[HansMustermann]

In case you did not realize it you are using language to communicate this dribble above.
If you are insisting that language existed before and without humans, I suggest you re-consider the evidence.

In other words, a complete non-sequitur, and the "dribble" insult I come to expect from such people.

But, anyway, you don't address my point, you introduce a complete red herring. Language has nothing to do with whether a rainbow exists objectively. In fact, my whole point was that the phenomenon objectively existed long before there was anyone to see it or give it a name.

Do you understand that? No matter how you assign words and categories to it, or the pieces of it, the same wavelength goes to the same angle.

There are cultures which describe the rainbow as simply "red, yellow, green, blue", because they have no words for the other hues. They draw the line between the yellow and red band right through the middle of what you'd call the orange band, because they have no separate word for orange. (Heck, for half its existence English didn't either.)

But here's the important part: they perceive those hues anyway. If you show one of those an orange card, a yellow card and a red card, they _will_ say it's three different colours. They might classify the orange one as a different hue of yellow or of red, but they _will_ see it as a different hue even if they don't have a separate word for it.

Basically, to get back to the rainbow, the same wavelengths go to the same angle for them too.

Ditto for my example with my classification by the IRS. I'm still me, regardless of the category they file me under.

So, basically, support your point or take a hike. I'm not interested in red herrings like "but you use language to say it."

[!Kaggen]

In fact, my whole point was that the phenomenon objectively existed long before there was anyone to see it or give it a name.

You are confused between percepts and concepts and are unable to pull them apart.
The percepts are there for sure, however they are not knowledge until humans came around to add a concept to them.
Concepts are not merely names of percepts. They carry much more meaning than that.
When we see a rainbow we do not merely name it. We also relate a certain position to it, colour sequence, shape, memories etc. These all fall within our concept "rainbow". We agree on this concept by agreeing on the implicit nature of a "rainbow" and this is what makes a rainbow real.


I'm not interested in red herrings like "but you use language to say it."

Concepts are a construct of language and it is therefore unavoidable to deal with language when dealing with concepts.


The point of the OP was to help split apart the percept from the concept so that one can understand how cognition works in producing knowledge.
This is important in order to develop a Theory of Knowledge free of pre-suppositions such as "The universe obeys a set of rules".


in order to avoid such a question

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5017520#post5017520

altogether

It seems very difficult for many to see this distinction because they want to believe that things exist a priori to human cognition.

Why we have this need is for me very strange especially within an atheist forum. Perhaps if we give up the first cause we still cling to the first object in case we may really lose any connection to theism.
Somehow there is this "feeling" that science would become invalid if we gave up this belief. Which is absolute nonsense.

In my opinion science would have a much firmer footing if we developed a Theory of Knowledge without any pre-suppositions.

[yy2bggggs]

Alright, I'm trying to understand this, but there's no way I'm going to read a whole bunch of other threads to get context. Rather, I'm simply going to stick my neck out and make a lot of bold pointless claims, and let people attack them, on the theory that if I'm actually misunderstanding something, someone who knows better should simply correct me.

So here goes... I'll start on the "inside".

There is a particular thing that we, subjectively, call a rainbow--a naive, yet pragmatic entity. I glance outside and notice that there is actually one of these things in the sky, "over in this direction, by the tree". It happens to be really distinct and beautiful, so I run over and tell a couple of friends about the pretty rainbow, and beg them to take a look. By then it's gotten a little fainter, but is still pretty. They come outside with me, and I point to it. "See it?" "Where?", one asks. "Over there," and I proceed to point, "behind that tree". They look, and then they notice--it's right over there.

That is the concept of a rainbow. So, first, I'm going to dissect what the concept itself is.

I start by saying, arbitrarily, that the thing I saw, I showed to my friends, and I was able to locate this thing again, and answer a question about it specifically to aid in my friends locating it... so there was a simple problem about this thing's existence that, among the interchanges of me with my friends, I happened, on this particular occasion, to actually solve. Again, all of this is naive, and arbitrary, but this is focusing solely on what the game I'm playing is, so to speak, when I talk about "the rainbow", and I show "the rainbow" to my friends.

Playing this game has certain prerequisites. In particular, in order for me to show this "thing" to my friends, I need a "thing" I can show them. This means that this must be a thing that can be shown, and it must be a thing that persists long enough to show them. So to play this game, we need an identifiable phenomena that can be categorized into a particular class, that exists for a duration, is observer independent for observers within a certain configuration (here, standing outside with me), and has a particular "direction" about which I can use to draw attention to it. "The" rainbow, as "virtual" as it is, has all of these requisite properties (it's not so different, by the way, from this forum post--which is also a virtual entity). It is a phenomena which I can treat as if it's a specific thing. And that allows me to "play the game" that I played with my friends above.

Now, we can move onto what the rainbow really is, but in order to do this, we must bear in mind that "the rainbow" per se is the phenomena about which the game I play above can be played in the first place. So we can take a look at optics, but optics alone is insufficient--this game I played isn't merely dependent on light, because it has to be something I can show my friends, which requires more than simply light and optics. It requires that we consider particular optics in light of the fact that I'm able to show my friends. Well, pointing to particular levels (and just this, since it's more or less sufficient to point out "the issue"), I personally was able to see the rainbow due to a particular probabilistic dance performed by three different chemicals within my eye--chlorolabe, cyanolabe, and erythrolabe. My friends also have chlorolabe, cyanolabe, and erythrolabe--however, the chlorolabe in my eye is not exactly the same chemical as the chlorolabe in my friend's eyes (unless we're extremely lucky--there are variations in the chemicals that result from our particular genetic makeups), and the same with the other two opsins. The result is that we're actually sensitive to spectra in different ways, meaning that we really see three different spectra. There's a general consistency about this, however, because our opsins are mostly the same, and are sensitive to approximately the same spectra, but when you put three people together looking at this visual phenomena, you nevertheless have a fuzzy range.

In addition, we're standing at different spots, watching different photons, at different times, bent by different droplets in different ways. But there's still a collection of droplets in a particular area of the atmosphere that is approximately in the correct spot for the three of us, and these are spread out wide enough to produce the same class of categorized phenomena, so the requisite conditions are still met, though this adds fuzziness as well. Finally, the sun itself, and the water droplets, are changing over time--but their change is gradual, and there's a range over which this produces the image of the rainbow. So there's all sorts of fuzziness going on here, and "different" things happening in different places, different sensibilities, different this's, that's, and the others, but they nevertheless fall sufficiently within parametric ranges such that I could speak about, point out, and communicate, to two of my friends, a particular instantiation of a class of identifiable phenomena, and can even do this to the extent that I can make my friends aware of the "same" instantiation.

So that's how rainbows work down the conceptual tree... but other things also have these fuzzy boundaries, sufficient consistencies, etc. This penny, for example, is something I can go to the store and exchange for 1 cent worth of value towards a purchase. It is a "thing"--a class of entities sufficient to communicate to other entities. It consists of a number of copper molecules, sort of... if I hold the penny very tightly for a moment, and then let go, and put it down, the penny is the thing that I put down. But my hands will smell of copper. The molecules of copper on my hands don't really matter as far as the "penny" is concerned, but it wasn't necessarily because those particular copper molecules didn't contribute to the "pennyness" of the penny before they found their way on my hand--there were no particular copper molecules within the penny that could be swapped out with the ones on my hand to make the penny not be the thing I actually put down, or to make the things on my hand have partial economic value in terms of the pragmatics of a purchase. What we call the penny is a fuzzy consistency, that also has a legitimacy about it tracing back to its formation at the official government mint.

All this having been said, I don't think any of the facts above come as a surprise to anyone. My first reaction is that there's no genuine misunderstanding here between the major sides, and no genuine insight, but rather, all of this is nothing more than an exchange of preferences of language. If I'm wrong here, or with any of the points above, it'd be nice to know.

[!Kaggen]

nothing more than an exchange of preferences of language

Commonly known as communication.

The importance of which is to express not just different ideas, but different states of consciousness.

This is really were the difficulty lies as we assume consciousness to be uniform between people and through time.

This is ultimately the point of the rainbow analogy.
To draw attention to the fact that different states of consciousness are a reality which needs to be taken into account when dealing with reality. The scientific method attempts at avoiding this by removing participatory consciousness from any investigation of reality. Hence the common use of the concept "laws of nature" independent of consciousness.
I am suggesting that instead of avoiding the variations in consciousness, we explore them in order to discover the laws and evolution of consciousness and how these laws and evolution affect our view of reality.

[Robin]

As the one true solipcist, when I die, you all die with me BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Everyone - be very nice to paximperium

[Dave Rogers]

Everyone - be very nice to paximperium

We don't need him happy, we just need him alive. Couldn't we just freeze him?

Dave