Science as it used to be

[bungeejumper]

The topic about the newly-discovered gland raises an interesting question from Gengulphus about why it's taken until now to discover this thing. My reading of the report was that they knew it was there, but they didn't know what it did until now?

Which set my errant brain back more than fifty years, to the time when my fellow language students and I were taught about how the German poet Goethe had been the discoverer of something called the intermaxillary bone. And how it had got him into a fair bit of trouble.....

It had always been known that apes and monkeys had this cranial bone, but it had never been found in a human. Which had fed conveniently into the biblical story that man was not in fact an ape, but a separate species created especially by God to rule the earth. Goethe's discovery, I believe, was that new-born babies did indeed have this bone, but that it soon merged with other bones so that it effectively disappeared and wasn't recorded as a separate item.

The discovery didn't go down well with the pope. Who had probably already heard about how Goethe had boasted of trying to sleep his way through all the prostitutes in Venice. But there I go, off topic again.

The thing was, Goethe was working at a time when science, philosophy, history and even art were regarded as one enormous messy interrelated discipline, and some of his scientific ideas were just plain nutty. The great man wrote a theory of colour (the Farbenlehre), in which he said that Newton had got it wrong about nearly everything.

Colours had no inherent qualities of their own until they hit the eyeball, said Goethe. His own research - aided with a goodly shot of ancient classical philosophy - had proved conclusively and for all time that colours possessed symbolic and ethical values of their own. And the greatest and most virtuous of these colours was purple. Which would have pleased Plato and the boys no end.

The odd thing, for me, is that Goethe wasn't laughed out of court straight away. But that the Pre-Raphaelites, JMW Turner, and even Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein, all took him seriously. Not that the last two were possessed of a very great sense of humour anyway. (We studied them as well, worse luck.)

There's more, if you're feeling strong, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours . Good luck with that it, I got a bellyful of the great man's poetry at uni, and I wouldn't have trusted his scientific instinct any further than I could throw it!

BJ

[Urbandreamer]

The thing was, Goethe was working at a time when science, philosophy, history and even art were regarded as one enormous messy interrelated discipline, and some of his scientific ideas were just plain nutty. The great man wrote a theory of colour (the Farbenlehre), in which he said that Newton had got it wrong about nearly everything.

Colours had no inherent qualities of their own until they hit the eyeball, said Goethe. His own research - aided with a goodly shot of ancient classical philosophy - had proved conclusively and for all time that colours possessed symbolic and ethical values of their own. And the greatest and most virtuous of these colours was purple. Which would have pleased Plato and the boys no end.

The odd thing, for me, is that Goethe wasn't laughed out of court straight away.
BJ

Well, let us compare his theory with that of another person who had to actually insert a colour into his spectrum to match his theory. Who? Why Newton.
https://nationalpost.com/news/why-the-c ... lt-rainbow

The more you look into the "spectrum" the more that you question how meaningful seven colours are. We don't get bands of solid colour. Why not a rainbow with teal or virmilion, or indeed any other shade as a band?

I could also point out that Goethe was right in at least one sense. Our eyes have three colour receptors, that may differ from person to person. They certainly differ between a human and a chicken*. The colour that a chicken sees will be very different, yet the light is no different.

*Chickens have better colour vision apparently.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101159.htm

[bungeejumper]

I could also point out that Goethe was right in at least one sense. Our eyes have three colour receptors, that may differ from person to person. They certainly differ between a human and a chicken*. The colour that a chicken sees will be very different, yet the light is no different.

*Chickens have better colour vision apparently.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101159.htm

Errrm, wouldn't that favour the idea that what strikes the eye isn't relevant to what the colour actually is?

I mean, when we use colour-spectrum technology to determine what elements are found in some distant planet, or to tell whether some distant star is moving toward us or away from us (bungee reaches the extent of his physics knowledge here), wouldn't it be better to stay focused on the inbuilt qualities of the colours?

"Here is a newsflash. The star system that we said yesterday was about to move into our corner of the galaxy is in fact moving the other way. How were we supposed to know the stupid astronomer was red-green colour blind?"

BJ

[XFool]

I could also point out that Goethe was right in at least one sense. Our eyes have three colour receptors, that may differ from person to person. They certainly differ between a human and a chicken*. The colour that a chicken sees will be very different, yet the light is no different.

*Chickens have better colour vision apparently.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101159.htm

Errrm, wouldn't that favour the idea that what strikes the eye isn't relevant to what the colour actually is?

I mean, when we use colour-spectrum technology to determine what elements are found in some distant planet, or to tell whether some distant star is moving toward us or away from us (bungee reaches the extent of his physics knowledge here), wouldn't it be better to stay focused on the inbuilt qualities of the colours?

"Here is a newsflash. The star system that we said yesterday was about to move into our corner of the galaxy is in fact moving the other way. How were we supposed to know the stupid astronomer was red-green colour blind?"

Doesn't work like that. Elements produce recognisable narrow emission or absorption (darker) lines in a star's spectrum. These are visibly shifted towards the 'red' (longer wavelength) end of the spectrum for receding motion and towards the 'blue' (shorter wavelength) if approaching.

[Urbandreamer]

Errrm, wouldn't that favour the idea that what strikes the eye isn't relevant to what the colour actually is?

I mean, when we use colour-spectrum technology to determine what elements are found in some distant planet, or to tell whether some distant star is moving toward us or away from us (bungee reaches the extent of his physics knowledge here), wouldn't it be better to stay focused on the inbuilt qualities of the colours?

No, that's a quality of the electromagnetic specturm, it's wavelength and absorbsion. Red is only "red" because we assign that name to a given wavelength. Indeed other links about Newton postulate that his indigo wavelength is not the one known today. Why? Well because it's difficult or impossible to see. Instead they postulate that his indigo was a dark blue and his blue a light blue.

Let's remember that we are talking about a man who experimented with sticking pins in his eyes. Great man none the less.

Why are people with carrot tops known as red heads. The colour clearly isn't red. Or rather it isn't any more. The name of the colour has changed. People who actually do have red hair have dyed it.

Does the colour red exist to someone with red-green colour blindness?

[bungeejumper]

Does the colour red exist to someone with red-green colour blindness?

Sure, you can start with me. If you show me a holly bush, I won't see the red berries until I'm within five or six feet of them. I can tell they're red all right, but against the green they're swamped so they disappear. Red just isn't as important to me. I have no problem with traffic lights, but for some reason they won't let me drive a train. Spoilsports.

I also have dodgy taste in interior decoration. My girlfriend had to break it to me that I'd just painted my bachelor bathroom in a fetching shade of pink.

Thanks to all for the heads-ups about the physics of time and space. Way above my head. Now, who's up for Leibniz's monad theory? The whole physical world is made up of the little buggers - sort of like atoms, but different - but each one of them is unaware of all the others and has no relationship with them. From the online Britannica:

In Leibniz’s system of metaphysics, monads are basic substances that make up the universe but lack spatial extension and hence are immaterial. Each monad is a unique, indestructible, dynamic, soullike entity whose properties are a function of its perceptions and appetites. Monads have no true causal relation with other monads, but all are perfectly synchronized with each other by God in a preestablished harmony. The objects of the material world are simply appearances of collections of monads.

My head hurts.

BJ

[GrahamPlatt]

Any amongst us who can see octarine?

[NomoneyNohoney]

In Leibniz’s system of metaphysics, monads are basic substances that make up the universe but lack spatial extension and hence are immaterial. Each monad is a unique, indestructible, dynamic, soullike entity whose properties are a function of its perceptions and appetites. Monads have no true causal relation with other monads, but all are perfectly synchronized with each other by God in a preestablished harmony. The objects of the material world are simply appearances of collections of monads.

When I were young(er) and daft(er), I like to think I invented Gorm Theory.
You know people are described sometimes as 'gormless?' That means they are lacking in gorms. And what are gorms? you may well ask.

Gorms are little people that make everything work. Incandescent lightbulbs? Two boy-scout gorms rubbing sticks together furiously, making light and heat. A radio? Voice-acting gorms who perform live when you turn the switch. Mobile phones? Gorms who record your voice on miniscule tape recorders, and then ride the ether to get to the phone you're talking to, to play back virtually instantly your message. There are so many different types of gorms, it would be infinite trying to explain and describe them all. Suffice to say, that's why we talk of gormless. I'm sure you can all find your own examples of how gorms make things work.