The wikipedia article referenced by @Warden_of_the_Storm seems to be more a collection of observations about colour. Its within the science of optics and quantum mechanics that the "behaviour" of colour falls out and provides an explanation for that behaviour. I suggest that while we have a theoretical explanation for colour, that is different from having a distinct theory of colour - it's just covered elsewhere.Hmm .. I think I'd personally prefer the 'color science' link for supporting science's take on any 'color theory', there(?)
The wikipedia article referenced by @Warden_of_the_Storm seems to be more a collection of observations about colour. Its within the science of optics and quantum mechanics that the "behaviour" of colour falls out and provides an explanation for that behaviour. I suggest that while we have a theoretical explanation for colour, that is different from having a distinct theory of colour - it's just covered elsewhere.
All good .. haven't seen it or the color science links before .. so: thanks!I was just pointing out that there is something called colour theory.
All good .. haven't seen it or the color science links before .. so: thanks!
Lots of interesting information to consume there.
Cheers
I'm not so sure there is a difference between a theoretical explanation for colour and a scientific theory of colour ..(?)The wikipedia article referenced by @Warden_of_the_Storm seems to be more a collection of observations about colour. Its within the science of optics and quantum mechanics that the "behaviour" of colour falls out and provides an explanation for that behaviour. I suggest that while we have a theoretical explanation for colour, that is different from having a distinct theory of colour - it's just covered elsewhere.
I'd guess that a few know the definition but like to troll; most don't want to know, being resistant to knowledge outside their comfort zone.What's your working hypothesis as to
why the creationist squad remains clueless
about even dictionary definition
level understanding of basic science?
I think it's just semantics - the theoretical explanation is, in principle, a scientific theory, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly distinguished as such in colour science. Traditional colour theory (behaviour of colours, colour mixing, etc) is a more subjective subset of colour science - as the Wikipedia article indicates.I'm not so sure there is a difference between a theoretical explanation for colour and a scientific theory of colour ..(?)
What caught my eye in the Color Science page, was the reference to 'Psychophysics' as being part of colour science:I think it's just semantics - the theoretical explanation is, in principle, a scientific theory, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly distinguished as such in colour science. Traditional colour theory (behaviour of colours, colour mixing, etc) is a more subjective subset of colour science - as the Wikipedia article indicates.
.. Interesting .. Sort of a sensitivity analysis technique for objectively probing into the subjective experience(?)Psychophysics quantitatively investigates the relationship between physical stimuli and the sensations and perceptions they produce. Psychophysics has been described as "the scientific study of the relation between stimulus and sensation" or, more completely, as "the analysis of perceptual processes by studying the effect on a subject's experience or behaviour of systematically varying the properties of a stimulus along one or more physical dimensions".
Psychophysics also refers to a general class of methods that can be applied to study a perceptual system. Modern applications rely heavily on threshold measurement, ideal observer analysis, and signal detection theory.
Perhaps one of them could offerI'd guess that a few know the definition but like to troll; most don't want to know, being resistant to knowledge outside their comfort zone.
Perhaps one of them could offer another explanation.
That's a rough approach to theories that you have. I mean, just calling it a theory means there's room for doubt in it, which means taking a firm belief in it is unwise. I suggest you approach theories with a more open-minded approach rather than jumping into a belief in them.A theory is a temporary belief awaiting override.
Sounds like the complement to phenomenology in philosophy...What caught my eye in the Color Science page, was the reference to 'Psychophysics' as being part of colour science:
.. Interesting .. Sort of a sensitivity analysis technique for objectively probing into the subjective experience(?)
Cheers
That's sometimes true in practice - scientists are human too. But a scientific theory is generally accepted as the best explanation we currently have, and the excitement aroused by the possibility of a new discovery overturning an existing theory contradicts the idea that it's a belief.A theory is a temporary belief awaiting override.
So that siilly equivocationThat's sometimes true in practice - scientists are human too. But a scientific theory is generally accepted as the best explanation we currently have, and the excitement aroused by the possibility of a new discovery overturning an existing theory contradicts the idea that it's a belief.
In theory, yes.Perhaps ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
... then go on to the small effort needed to learn what a scientific theory is.
In theory, yes.
But also in theory, no.
Quick answer: impossible even if theory is correct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?