I was told that dogs see in black and white only. If you try to explain color to a dog (if they understood human language) , they would answer something along the lines of "what in the hell are you talking about?"
That's better. You can't seriously be unaware of the reach of science? Math, the LHC, we have an incredible number of ways to look at reality that tells us more than we could infer by deduction or reason about reality. This information is not then evaluated by us and made to fit what we believe, or what is a standard model of physics, it's taken on its own merit and analysed, using non-human tools. The idea that science is blikered by preconceived notions of what reality is, is wrong. Science is event first, reasoning second, based on evidence. As above, you seem to be missing the point: this is a science forum and unless you have a way of proving the metaphysical exists, you're pretty much wasting your time. A gap in science or our understanding of perception does not mean that we need to invoke the metaphysical to account for it. MelT
One question will stump ur hollow and arrogant objections... Can you know what the color red looks like without experiencing it or is knowing the wavelength of light good enough? </blockquote> I still don't understand your point. No we wouldn't. Just like we don't know what UV looks like. But bees do. What does that prove exactly? And how does it refute "science"? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Humans cant see Gama rays bit we can detect them. Is the open arguing that senses are required for some sort of higher science? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
No, it sounded like he wanted to talk about the physical proporties of the color red. I most likely mis-understood the point he was trying to make so I think i'll shut up now
No, it sounded like he wanted to talk about the physical proporties of the color red. I most likely mis-understood the point he was trying to make so I think i'll shut up now </blockquote> I don't think so. In his OP hebasically said the.physical properties of light are irrelevent and.science is wrong because what we see is red. It made no sense Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Red is red no matter who sees it. Science trumps subjective reality. Science applies to everything. Subjective reality applies only to the observer An observer can see a hallucination. But that observer did not obtain greater knowledge of subjective reality. Instead he misinterpreted the objective reality. Science is everything. This can't be refuted Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
For one thing, we use scientific instruments as a means of expanding our limited sense - eg. telescopes that see how light is polarized or an instrument that detects magnetic fields - neither of those things humans can do with our 5 senses. Are you saying that we then take this data and look at it with our eyes and therefore it is 'too subjective' to be scientific?? And it would have actually made sense if you had said 'What is it that's exactly being seen 'through science' " - we are not looking through science to something beyond it...