Okay, science is proven?! Oh, come now! If I show you a pen. I ask you what color it is. Can you PROVE that it is that color???? No, you CAN'T PROVE it
64 comments
depending on the stimulation of red cones, green cones, and blue cones, in my retina, I can tell you what color I perceive the pen to be
Yes you can. Just run it through something that detects light and compare the wavelength of the light to the wavelengths of the different colours. Easy.
On the other hand, I'd like to see you prove that the Bible was written by God.
The pen is probably metal and plastic, both of which require their appropriate science-derived manufacturing processes.
(Prove that your pen was not manufactured.)
Are you saying you're color blind?
You don't seem to know what science is. The process of conducting science is the process of proving things.
For that matter, you seem equally unable to grasp the concepts of prove, color and pen.
Not in the way you prove a mathematical formula.
But what sudden and uncompromising skepticism from someone who believes in talking snakes, global floods, and vicarious redemption through torturous death.
If those alleged eyewitnesses are proof that God revealed the Torah or that Christ rose from the dead, then real eyewitnesses should be proof of the color of your pen. Even if those eyewitnesses aren't proof, I guess we can use a spectrometer to plot intensity of reflected light as a function of wavelength.
A more apt metaphor for the existence of Jebus would be:
"If I told you that a pen existed somewhere, but I wouldn't show it to you or describe it, and showed you thousands of pages of blank paper that it had 'written' on, that means you can't question the existence of the pen, and the pen loves you and will send you to hell."
Now if he consistently applied that level of extreme skepticism to everything, there'd be nothing wrong with that statement. Hume and Berkeley would be proud of him. Usually, though, people only apply it to stuff they've already decided they disagree with. You'll never see a fundie, for example, apply this kind of reasoning to the Bible; only to criticism of the Bible. Then it becomes useless sophistry.
Of course, if Ashley here is advancing solipsism as his/her viewpoint then that is pretty much irrefutable.
In any other sense it is wrong, not so much because of the many and inventive tests listed above but because 'proven' means "established by test or trial", not "true". Hence the phrases "proven true" and "proven false", measures of alcoholic content such as "120 proof", and the otherwise incomprehensible saying "The exception proves (i.e. tests) the rule."
Science is proven. It establishes its tenets by test and trial, not by force of arms, threats of damnation, promises of virgins or unproveable assertions.
It depends on which language you use. If you've got different names for colors (calling red orange and orange red for example) you can get quite a stir up (as long as the person doesn't say any more than that word). You should check languages if the person is color blind (people don't notice they are if it is not pointed out to them) and you should not be doing stupid tricks like claiming that it isn't "blue" but "sky blue".
After checking all o that we can with almost 100% certainty say what color something is.
Sure we can prove it. First, the pen has to have a color, let's say it's blue. Then we ask a series of questions. "Is the pen red?" No. "Is the pen green?" No. Eventually the only option left is blue and because the pen has to have a color, it must be blue.
P.S: Gaia Online, the stuff of nightmares.
Did anyone else imagine Jim Carrey in "Liar, Liar" with ink all over his face going
"The pen is blue! The pen is blue! The GOD DAMN PEN IS BLUE!"
Yes, we can, as mentioned earlier, you can measure the wavelength of the reflacted light, or even do something nifty with different filters.
If I call you stupid, can I prove how stupid you are - oh wait we have tests for that too, never mind!
With reason alone, since it's possible that our senses can deceive us,(without taking the leap of faith into empiricism) it is possible for the pen not to be the colour that we perceive it to be, the fact that we see a pen and perceive it to be a certain colour is not a tautology, so he is right in this sense, using reason alone one cannot prove his existence.
Actually, I've often wondered if people don't perceive color differently -- red looking like blue or whatever, depending on the person. It wouldn't really matter much, though, because except in pathological cases such as aberrant trichromacy you'd never notice that the colors were coming up differently in the brain.
Of all the...
Fine. Prove to me that you exist, and I will do just as good of a job proving to you what color that pen is. What you are talking about isn't even 'science' as you probably think of it... psychology of perception, linguistics, maybe some physics of lightwaves.
We can prove to you, if it were necessary, the physical properties of the light being reflected by said pen are, and what most other people who speak you language would call it. Thinking humans would accept this as proof, but then again they wouldn't ask for any unless they were a 3rd year philosophy student.
If you use the standard definition of proof, yes, just by looking at it.
If you want to go into solipsism and absolute proof, I can only say that the pen has, for all relevant cases, a very high probability of being the color I sense it to be.
JasoNF is right. I'll offer one slight modification though. Science is not in the business of proving truths, after all it is rather difficult to prove that the universe isnt just a figment of ones imagination. Rather, it deals it disproving falsehoods and reconciling inconsistencies. Whatever remains can be trusted.
iamashleyx: "Okay, science is proven?! Oh, come now! If I show you a pen I just pulled out my ass. I ask you what color did it use to be? It's BROWN now, but what color did was it before? Can you PROVE that it is that color???? No, you CAN'T PROVE it"
Nope - still retarded!
Yes I can. The meaning of that color is accepted and catalouged as the undestanding of color is a science.
Please stop these illogical arguments. Red is Red, this doesn't change but only varies with shades or which language you're speaking. Red is never green. Have you not ever seen color sheets from paint stores, those are caculated proportional formulas for creating all secondary, tertiary and beyond colors.
Science!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
