| Well the main article shows a bunch of demonstrations of how objects can appear lighter than they are when contrasted against a dark background which makes logical sense. In the disputed image however, you have a bright background (so bright in fact that it causes glare on the lens over the right shoulder of the dress) supposedly making the dress appear lighter than it is. If anything I would say that the optical illusions offer evidence of why the dress would generally appear darker than it actually is than why it would appear lighter. My problem with the "because science" isn't meant to be dismissive or imply that the principles that are argued aren't valid or plausible, my problem with "because science" is that a lot of the articles and videos made to describe the phenomena are titled something to the tune of "Science explains why people see different colors" and offer one of a varied set of plausible hypotheses, but they are explaining something without any controls. I see it like being told you have cancer, asking the doctor "why?" and her saying "have you ever smoked cigarettes?" you saying yes, and her saying, "Well it's widely known and has been repeatedly proven that cigarettes are carcinogenic, there's your explanation." In the same light, to me, saying the dress is interpreted differently because our brain plays tricks on us such as in optical illusions (which I don't refute at all) and that's why people are seeing it as different colors is completely unscientific to me because it doesn't have controls for things such as the type of screen people are viewing things from (glass vs matte), the color temperature of the screen (anyone running f.lux?), the viewing angle, auto-dimming screens based on ambient light, the effects of anti-glare material in some screens all of which may contribute to why not only different people see the image differently, but why the same people see the image differently based on different times/environments. And given the amount of time and energy people have devoted to discussing this, I don't see why asking for evidence of one globally debated outlier example is comparable to redoing experiments that have been widely reproduced. The thing is, I don't have a problem with people using previously proven concepts to expose potential explanations, I have a problem with people saying that one hypothesis "scientifically explains" a phenomena because it's a scientifically viable hypothesis. ---
On a side note, thanks for disagreeing with me via a reply instead of just arbitrarily down voting me because you don't like my opinion. I wish more people on here shared the views you expressed on your about blob. |