51. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27389 by davyB on March 24, 2007 at 10:52 am

Because we have three kinds of color receptors, our "color space" is three dimensional. Some brainy person - was Munsell the first? - hit upon a very useful and intuitive scheme that has coordinates called hue, value, and chroma. If we had four kinds of color receptors, our brains could probably learn to discriminate a four dimensional color space. The idea is not as bizarre as it might seem at first. We experience taste based on four or five kinds of sensors: bitter, sweet, sour, salty, and maybe you want to throw "hot" in there.

Downside to a fourth kind of color receptor? The Munsell Book of Color, which currently costs about $550, would balloon from two volumes to over three thousand.

52. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27379 by davyB on March 24, 2007 at 9:52 am

KarlJ, I think I understand your question. I am thinking about how it might be tested, but nothing is immediately obvious.

First I have some comments about what you said about the spectrum and purple, because it is central to the question. Purple is not really a spectral color. It is true that some people see a faint band of violet at the far blue end of the rainbow. I don't think anyone knows for sure why that is. Perhaps it is because our new, fancy R cones are slightly bi-modal and respond a little bit to light at those B wavelengths. How about magenta though? Nothing remotely similar to magenta is to be found in the rainbow. To see a vivid purple or magenta, the eyes have to be stimulated with light from both ends of the visible spectrum and not much from the middle (green) section.

It is because of the three types of cones that we can map the hues we see onto a CIRCLE rather than a line like the rainbow colors. The two ends of the rainbow colors are connected by a line of crimson, magenta, and purple, forming a loop or "wheel."

Do the mice see a color wheel, or do they just see a color line better?

I rather doubt that the mice would immediately see the color wheel. More evolution would seem to be needed. But the important thing is that they immediately see better. Evolution does not plan ahead. For that reason, the result of the experiment should have been anticipated. Still, it's way cool.

53. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27168 by davyB on March 23, 2007 at 10:37 am

The sound gets better at about 15 minutes.

There's not much in this debate because McGrath's arguments are almost totally vacuuous. He once hinted at the design argument, but mostly he just says he believes because he "thinks it is true," or "it is what's good."

Atkins fumbled when he was asked why simple explanations are generally to be preferred to complicated ones.

54. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27149 by davyB on March 23, 2007 at 9:40 am

It's too hard for me to understand. Maybe if I spoke English English it would be easier.

55. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #26985 by davyB on March 22, 2007 at 5:52 pm

I'm pretty sure whoever wrote that sentence didn't major in mathematics or English. Bachelor of Gibberish, maybe.

56. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26935 by davyB on March 22, 2007 at 11:48 am

What was the punch line to the joke about the Chinese waiter? I played it three times, and couldn't understand it.

57. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25395 by davyB on March 12, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Dr. Dawkins has gotten a lot quicker over the years. He stepped on his own toes a few times, like when he said people should vote against the proposition because if it passed, the press would misinterpret the result.

58. Blame Abraham

Comment #25075 by davyB on March 10, 2007 at 2:56 am

Historians, was the advent of monotheism coincident with the use of religion to control and manipulate the people? I've been wondering about that for some time now. It seems to me that the older polytheistic religions just weren't set up very well for that. They were nothing more than bad science. Without a single moral authority prepared to smite or reward, it just wouldn't work very well politically.

59. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25073 by davyB on March 10, 2007 at 2:45 am

The word "apology" just means setting the record straight. It may contain an element of regret; it may not. It should be sincerely contrite only if contrition is warranted. One of the dictionary definitions is "a formal justification or defense." Another is "an explanation or excuse."

Why apologize? Because that is what honorable men do. Dr. Dawkins left his guard down for a moment and allowed an unscrupulous person to create a controversy. Now he has set the record straight.

Next subject.

60. Academy denies claims from job candidate

Comment #24996 by davyB on March 9, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Mr. Sutton needs to look up the word "refuted."

61. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24676 by davyB on March 8, 2007 at 2:54 am

There's a link for "log in/create account." But if there's a way to create an account, I have not found it. The puzzling thing is, there is negative commentary on some of the talk pages. Was there a way to create an account at one time that has since been disabled?

How insulting to the people who created the Wiki concept - use the software, but disable the feature that's the very essence of it.

62. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24628 by davyB on March 7, 2007 at 5:17 pm

[Removed. Sorry.]

63. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24468 by davyB on March 6, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Click through to the original article and you'll find a text box for responses. There have been only two so far, both critical. Why don't all you folks cut and paste your comments there? Only four people have voted in the "Recommend this article?" survey. It's 4-0 against.

64. Religion and Politics

Comment #24295 by davyB on March 5, 2007 at 6:02 pm

I googled about for a bit. Concerning Buddhism, Sam Harris is quoted as saying, "I am a practitioner, but I don't really think of myself as a Buddhist." I don't know what the distinction is.

65. Religion and Politics

Comment #24291 by davyB on March 5, 2007 at 5:29 pm

I'll admit I don't know beans about it, but I don't think Theravadin Buddhists necessarily believe in reincarnation, nor do they have a fundamentalist sort of faith that Sidhartha actually spoke the words that are attributed to him. Sam Harris is some sort of Buddhist. What kind, I don't know.

66. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24047 by davyB on March 4, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Read it at the book store. When you've had enough, return it to the "Religious Fiction" section.

67. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23313 by davyB on February 27, 2007 at 6:52 pm

I think Dawkins misses a point about the reasons people Believe with a capital B. Before the advent of monotheism and the Big Three, religion was just bad science. After, it was a way for the powers that be to control and manipulate the masses.

68. The Certainty Bias

Comment #23241 by davyB on February 27, 2007 at 5:22 am

Robives requested a good overview of Bayesian statistics. So here ya go:

BAYESIAN THEORY

by José M. Bernardo and Adrian F. M. Smith Wiley, Chichester, 1994 586pp., cloth, ISBN 0-471-92416-4

Also check out www.bayesian.org

69. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23239 by davyB on February 27, 2007 at 5:07 am

I seem to remember that I read something about the DNA from the bones being mitochondrial. If so, it could show whether or not Mary was Jesus's mum, but it wouldn't say anything about whether Joseph was his poppa. It would be interesting if Joseph were proven to be JC's biological dad. If he's not, then the paternity can never be determined.