this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

14941 readers
40 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Technically, all the colors are fake. They're just the halucinations of a brain trying to understand the input from sensory organs.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That doesn't make them fake, in the same way that x can mean 2. You are merely representing a given value in a useful way.

[–] voodooattack@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But is my red the same as your red? Hmmm?

[–] Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

if two people can both point to red and agree that it's red, that's close enough. anything beyond that is just pointless esoteric debate.

[–] Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

Some people see numbers instead/along with colors, and different people see different numbers, so I guess the colors might be different between people too

[–] voodooattack@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I disagree that it's pointless. I think it may be beneficial to humanity (eventually) to establish whether or not there is an objective reality which we all experience.

[–] Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

i agree, but that's a job for neuroscience, quantum mechanics, and psychology; not a pack of dorks on the fediverse.

[–] Sedathems@mander.xyz 0 points 2 months ago

it's more in the philosophy ballpark, which shapes the interpretration of methodology and the consequences, in my humble opinion.

[–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But I want to contribute to humanity in a meaningful way!

-me, a dork on the Fediverse nearly incapable of contributing to humanity in a meaninful way

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But what if the dorks on the fediverse are scientists?

[–] Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

then by all means

[–] pcalau12i@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There is no way to "establish whether or not there is an objective reality." It's a philosophical position. You either take the reality which we observe and study as part of the material sciences to be objective reality, or you don't believe it's objective reality and think it is all sort of invented in the "mind" somehow. Either position you take, you cannot prove or disprove either one, because even if you take the latter position, no evidence I present to you could change your mind because to be presented evidence would only mean for that evidence to appear in the mind, and thus wouldn't prove anything. The best argument we can make is just taking the reality we observe as indeed reality is just philosophically simpler, but that also requires you to philosophically value simplicity, which you cannot prove what philosophical principles we should value with science either.

[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

I hadn't thought about it that way.

[–] sfu@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, colors are real. And you see them.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Pink isn't real. There is no wavelength of light that is pink.

[–] bilb@lem.monster 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Its bright red, maybe toward purple! Brown is dark orange.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago

This person colors

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Light frequencies between blue and red don't exist.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago

Clearly, it's light-ish red.

[–] sfu@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pink is real, or you couldn't see it. And you couldn't see it unless light was bringing it to your eyes.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

For pink light to be perceived, it needs red cones to fully react, and both green and blue cones to only partially activate.

https://gizmodo.com/if-the-color-pink-doesnt-scientifically-exist-why-can-1464266788

[–] sfu@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The definition of color from Merriam/Webster.

a : a phenomenon of light (such as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects b (1) : the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation (see SATURATION sense 4) for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wavelength of green light = 550nm

Wavelength of pink light = N/A

[–] sfu@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

I guess we disagree.

I stand with Merriam/Websters definition of color. You are using a different definition.