Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Ella asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 1 decade ago

Can anybody really prove me wrong?

Red could be blue or orange or green. It all depends on who's eyes are looking. Everybody could see a different color for the same thing, but all call it the same thing because that's what we've been taught to call it all of our lives. We've grown up with somebody pointing at a color and saying "red" even though it could be blue to you and purple to me. Prove me wrong.

Update:

Ok, I need to explain a little bit more for some of you. I'm not saying they would call it any different, cuz they would all call it the same thing, just it differently.

12 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Gladly.

    Scientifically speaking, colors are not defined by how they are perceived by an observer at all, but by the wavelengths of light they absorb and reflect.

    "Red" items are those that reflect wavelengths of ~625-740 nanometers and have a frequency of ~480-405 THz.

    Likewise, blues have a wavelength of 440–490 nm, yellows have a wavelength of 570–580 nm, greens have a wavelength of 520–570 nm, and indigos have a wavelength of 420–450 nm.

    Colors have actual, objective definitions and the fact that someone may have been taught the wrong label in no way changes that fact. You could teach anyone the wrong label for anything and it wouldn't change the actual definition of the thing. Calling two oranges three oranges does not produce a third orange because the word is merely a label for what the thing actually is.

    Granted, someone with a sight deficiency may "perceive" and "interpret" the light differently, but the wavelength of red light will be the same if they can recognize it as such or not (much the same way as a blind person's inability to see a horse does not prevent it from in fact being a horse, nor does an English person's inability to understand the French language means that the sounds they hear are not in fact French words).

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There is no possible way for people to see a different color to the same thing. There is only one reason that a person would call a red ball blue, that would be because they had been taught that that particular color was called blue. The reason that they would still call it blue is because nobody has raised the objection that says that the ball was really red that the person will believe.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    So, if i can't prove you wrong on this, are you implying i cannot prove you don't exist?*

    I have speculated a simple solution for you, my dear chum.

    Color is Genetic.

    How does the body know what color the eyes should be, or what color the skin?

    Why do the leopard's spots help it to blend in with the surroundings?

    Because the things that we see and deal with on a day to day basis affect us. Genetically.

    edit; i could say the same thing for plants, specifically flowers.

    How does one batch of roses decide to change color, how does it perceive the difference?

    Source(s): *philosophical outburst there. sry.
  • 1 decade ago

    No, you're right.

    While the colors are bound to their respective wavelengths of light (and therefore constant), there is no proof that we all perceive them the same way. The way my brain perceive red could be the way that yours perceives blue, even though both of our eyes are simply seeing light with a 650 nm wavelength.

    However, even if it is possible, it really has no implications. Think about it: does it really change anything?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Bill
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    read "Wesley B' above. He did a nice job of proving you quite wrong.

    This question has been asked before, and proven wrong beofre, here at Y!A.

    You are putting too much weight on human perception and not nearly enought on physical reality.

    If you stood in the street blindfolded and with your ears plugged, and therefore did not see nor hear the car coming that hit you and put you in the hospital, would it change things that much if you didn't have the blind fold on and got hit by the car anyway?

    Our perceptions don't create reality, although at the quantum level it is rumored that they can change things a bit.

  • Marbie
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Wesley is right. Colors have their own specific wavelengths and in our eyes there are cones and rods. Cones contain pigments that are sensitive to certain wavelengths of color. Everyone has cones with the same types of pigments. There are people with varying degrees of color blindness, but they are a few percentage of the population.

  • Tyler
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Wesley makes a good point, there are usually several ways of confirming the objectivity of a phenomenon. But what happens if we take this thought further? What if when you say "two," I hear "three" and when you say "three," I hear "two?"

  • 1 decade ago

    you are right, i cant prove you wrong. there really is no way to know what color people are really seeing.

  • 1 decade ago

    I have one example:

    At night,everything is dark...But if I see the "dark" "dark",and someone see the "dark" "white"but he says that it's dark...

    Will he see at night(at darkness)?☺☻☺

  • Bailey
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    A rose by any other name...

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.