[737013]

What I found really useful about this was how the presentation laid it out in a way where I could really understand it. For the first time, I got a simple set of concepts behind choosing colors. Without going back to the article, just what I remembered:

1) Choose complements. 2) Mix them with each other until they dull down a bit 3) Make some other neutral color ( possibly by mixing them in equal parts ? ) and then you have 3 colors, and you've got a basis.

( OK -- just considering is there any connection between color theory and the basis of a vector field? )

So what I liked about this was it taught me something I didn't know.

I accept there are a lot of comments by experts on here about how this simplified presentation is wrong in such and such a way. I don't think that decreases its utility for me.

To a novice, just having something tangible to understand is the first step. I understand how to experts, it seems like the wrong advice. But I felt I understood it, and that's invaluable.

If you don't know what I mean by this, maybe it's better explained by something a professor said to me in grad school, "The trick to teaching is to trick people into thinking they understand it. Don't show them all the complexity. Show them a simplified model. Let them come to it in stages."

I think that's true. It stuck with me and it seems true. It also matches what I see my science education was like looking back -- a presentation of a series of models, over a number of years, that gradually layered in more and more complexity, but at a pace that was comfortable. This "chain of models" mostly agreed with each other, but the points where they contradicted each other didn't to my memory negatively impact learning, instead they served as signposts that made each model more distinct and aided in remembering them.

Also, there is this great feeling of being able to say, "Yes from the perspective of model X that is true, but when you factor in what model Y says, you get a different picture. Here, let me show you." That always sounds like a true expert. I like that and it also seems like having a bunch of models, not all in perfect agreement, in fact strengthened by the points where they do differ, gives overall a far richer picture of the topic.

The strongest idea that stayed with me from my science education was that "everything is a model" and "none of them are true" but some of them are useful. Different models, with different levels of faithfulness to evidence.

My main critique of what I will label the "dismissive expert answers" is that they posit a inflexible model of the "absolute truth", which, I say is, given by itself: not that useful ( at least to learn the topic ), and not really true ( because well, no model can be ).

I am sorry if this length comment is more suited as a blog post. Maybe I should just make blog posts instead of comments and link to the article. Maybe that's better than anyone. I'm not trying to offend any experts or do anything ego based, just push back against the what I feel were dismissive answers that missed another side of the value of this article. I wanted to share what I thought that other side of the value of this article was.

It does seem like a highly personal comment, just from my point of view. I hope it's been useful to some others to read it!

[jacobolus]

> (OK -- just considering is there any connection between color theory and the basis of a vector field?)

You’re looking for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassmann%27s_law_(optics)

The same Grassmann was (arguably) the creator of linear algebra, several decades before anyone in the mainstream mathematics community took it seriously.

> I understand how to experts, it seems like the wrong advice. But I felt I understood it, and that's invaluable.

Same goes for the flat earth theory or young-earth creationism. :-)

[737013]

:)

I was going to reply with, "Yes, but the distinction in this case is that at least this presented color model is roughly correct, in that it is part of a chain of successively more correct models, that has significant overlap with what's real."

But then I pressed myself for -- what exactly is that overlap? I mean, creationism...flat earth theory, have some overlap with the evidence. They are models. People criticise them because they don't overlap as much with the evidence as other models.

In this case, I realized I didn't know enough about the topic to know how much the presented model ( about color theory...which I like and find comprehensible ) overlaps with the "reality" or "the rest of the evidence" about it.

So my objection to comparing this color theory I like to other models that have been widely invalidated...is simply personal. I don't know enough about the data about color to make any substantive argument about why it's different. I feel it must overlap more with the "reality" of color than the other models. Because it makes sense to me, I can see the logic and it matched my impressions about color and was useful to me. And I trust my instincts. ( There is something more in that I'll come to in a minute )

It's sort of uncomfortable to realize I don't know enough about it to refute objections to my fav new theory with anything more than "But I really like it and I can see the truth to it." But at the same time, I'm okay with that. I'm not going to learn more about the data to be able to offer these objections. I think mainly because...this theory is useful enough to me. It works for what I need right now. And matches the pace I want to learn things about this at.

From an economic argument -- this model has utility to me, so I selected it, as opposed to alternatives.

I really appreciated your link to Grassmann. I was super happy that my instincts overlapped with the guy that invented linear algebra.

Which brings me to another point. Science is sometimes uncomfortable because you realize that what is accepted my a lot of people, goes against your instinct, or your direct experience.

I think there's something really important in this. And I don't think it's so simple as "well that means you're wrong" -- I think it's the case that the following are true:

When your instincts are against the majority opinion. Either: 1) they're onto a more valid model than you, more likely, or 2) you're onto a more valid model than them and they've missed something, less likely, and yet that's the history of science ( and startups! ), or 3) the relative levels of validity do not matter to you because it has more personal utility for you, at that point in your life, to believe the model you like than something else.

I like the third point -- because in there is room for tolerance of diversity based on the idea of personal utility. As long as the utility doesn't cause significant cost to anyone else, then trusting your instincts in the face of evidence, even if you're wrong, can still be the choice that maximizes personal utility for you at that point.

Again, this comment might be too long...but I thought it useful to explore my vulnerability to realizing I didn't know enough, but I liked it anyway -- in this forum, so other people could see that maybe when you get to that point, it doesn't always have to result in fighting...but there can be something to learn from it. I think people here will appreciate that--but if not, I guess this type of comment is better as a blog post or personal note.

Personal utility functions over lifepaths -- it's a complex landscape out there!