3 ms·

Not exactly relevant to your post, but I'm dismayed by the number of people who refuse to believe that water is blue. I don't mind that nobody knows that, it's

Not exactly relevant to your post, but I'm dismayed by the number of people who refuse to believe that water is blue. I don't mind that nobody knows that, it's an obscure fact, but the fact that they refuse to believe something that explains a bunch of everyday phenomena (like the color of the sea) makes me sad.

mncharity 5y ago
Nod. Color is often taught starting in preK, and yet even first-tier physical-sciences graduate students, asked "What color is the Sun?", often answer with something like "it doesn't have a color" or "it's rainbow color", suggesting wide-spread deep misunderstanding of color. It seems teaching of color isn't going well. So what might better look like? Phones/tablets are used preK on. Phones with multiple front cameras could permit a clip-on spectrometer to provide a simultaneous normal view for orientation, making it more accessible. UV and thermal IR cameras are increasingly inexpensive. Light engines for spectra synthesis regrettably seem less readily available? So what might a Kish-accessible spectrometer app look like? What might a spectra-centered preK-2 learning progression for color look like? It seems at least vaguely plausible that color might thus be taught successfully. Imagine that were true, and gave you early-primary students with a firm grasp of color. How might that then be used, to teach other topics better? UV protection; warm clothes and insulation; Earth's thermal-management BBQ roll, cold clear nights and mountains and deserts, greenhouse gasses; ... ? > refuse to believe something that explains a bunch of everyday phenomena Integrated explanation of everyday phenomena does not seem a focus of current education. So perhaps refusal might reflect a lack of familiarity and comfort with such reasoning?
astrange 5y ago
Can't you know that by looking at a swimming pool? Don't think I've seen someone actively refuse to believe this.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  You'd definitely think so!
  - mncharity 5y ago
    Googling for questions and associated discussion, is one way to look for common conceptions. So I googled "what color is water"[1], and the top snippet of "Is water green or blue?" was this gem[2]: "Water isn't inherently blue; our eyes and brains interpret water as being blue because water molecules absorb reds, greens, oranges, and yellows—thus leaving only shorter-wavelength blues and violets unabsorbed to reflect back for our eyes to see." Lol. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=what+color+is+water https://www.google.com/search?q=what+color+is+water [2] http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/why-is-the-ocean-different-colors-in-different-places http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/why-is-the-ocean-different-co...
    - StavrosK 5y ago
      Ahh, so water isn't inherently blue, our eyes and brains interpret it as blue because it's blue. Looking for misconceptions is a great strategy, thanks!
    - astrange 5y ago
      Maybe it's like bluebirds, which are popularly scientifically said to not actually be blue because the way they're blue comes from a refraction effect. https://wvbirder.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/bluebirds-and-blue-birds-are-not-blue/ https://wvbirder.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/bluebirds-and-blue... (They are blue. Looking blue in white light is the same thing as being blue.)
      - mncharity 5y ago
        There are conceptions around color being an inherent property of an object, independent of the light coming from/to it. "The book is purple". Turning off the lights doesn't mean the book has changed color, and now is black. And it still is a purple book, even when under red light it looks red. Sort of "object's potential color if lit with white"? If one thinks an object is the color it reflects, then add confusion about refraction, and one might easily get to "it looks blue but really isn't". Science education echos stories, and sometimes those are less than wonderful. Like tabloid journalism narratives, missing the point and leaving readers confused and misled. As with "color from refraction, constructive and destructive interference". IIUC, that interference is mere description of wavelength-dependent differential bending - you still need to absorb the colors you don't wish emerging. But emphasizing "it's not pigment color, it's structural color!", rather than their similarity, can parse as reflection/absorption vs refraction, and conceptually interbreed with real vs apparent object color. Stories like [1]. The "constructive interference" is "cancelling out" wavelengths, which "is why your eyes perceive" blue. Rather than say, here's one of several mechanisms for pigments to color objects. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Ts7CsJDpg&t=113s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Ts7CsJDpg&t=113s
- mncharity 5y ago
  Is it blue or green?[1] Are you just seeing the blue liner many pools have? Or reflected blue sky? Or maybe something added to the pool water? Working from limited data can be hard. If you've only ever seen one or few pools... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=swimming+pool&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=swimming+pool&tbm=isch

mncharity 5y ago

Nod. Color is often taught starting in preK, and yet even first-tier physical-sciences graduate students, asked "What color is the Sun?", often answer with something like "it doesn't have a color" or "it's rainbow color", suggesting wide-spread deep misunderstanding of color. It seems teaching of color isn't going well. So what might better look like? Phones/tablets are used preK on. Phones with multiple front cameras could permit a clip-on spectrometer to provide a simultaneous normal view for orientation, making it more accessible. UV and thermal IR cameras are increasingly inexpensive. Light engines for spectra synthesis regrettably seem less readily available? So what might a Kish-accessible spectrometer app look like? What might a spectra-centered preK-2 learning progression for color look like? It seems at least vaguely plausible that color might thus be taught successfully. Imagine that were true, and gave you early-primary students with a firm grasp of color. How might that then be used, to teach other topics better? UV protection; warm clothes and insulation; Earth's thermal-management BBQ roll, cold clear nights and mountains and deserts, greenhouse gasses; ... ? > refuse to believe something that explains a bunch of everyday phenomena Integrated explanation of everyday phenomena does not seem a focus of current education. So perhaps refusal might reflect a lack of familiarity and comfort with such reasoning?

astrange 5y ago

Can't you know that by looking at a swimming pool? Don't think I've seen someone actively refuse to believe this.

StavrosK 5y ago
You'd definitely think so!
- mncharity 5y ago
  Googling for questions and associated discussion, is one way to look for common conceptions. So I googled "what color is water"[1], and the top snippet of "Is water green or blue?" was this gem[2]: "Water isn't inherently blue; our eyes and brains interpret water as being blue because water molecules absorb reds, greens, oranges, and yellows—thus leaving only shorter-wavelength blues and violets unabsorbed to reflect back for our eyes to see." Lol. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=what+color+is+water https://www.google.com/search?q=what+color+is+water [2] http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/why-is-the-ocean-different-colors-in-different-places http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/why-is-the-ocean-different-co...
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    Ahh, so water isn't inherently blue, our eyes and brains interpret it as blue because it's blue. Looking for misconceptions is a great strategy, thanks!
  - astrange 5y ago
    Maybe it's like bluebirds, which are popularly scientifically said to not actually be blue because the way they're blue comes from a refraction effect. https://wvbirder.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/bluebirds-and-blue-birds-are-not-blue/ https://wvbirder.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/bluebirds-and-blue... (They are blue. Looking blue in white light is the same thing as being blue.)
    - mncharity 5y ago
      There are conceptions around color being an inherent property of an object, independent of the light coming from/to it. "The book is purple". Turning off the lights doesn't mean the book has changed color, and now is black. And it still is a purple book, even when under red light it looks red. Sort of "object's potential color if lit with white"? If one thinks an object is the color it reflects, then add confusion about refraction, and one might easily get to "it looks blue but really isn't". Science education echos stories, and sometimes those are less than wonderful. Like tabloid journalism narratives, missing the point and leaving readers confused and misled. As with "color from refraction, constructive and destructive interference". IIUC, that interference is mere description of wavelength-dependent differential bending - you still need to absorb the colors you don't wish emerging. But emphasizing "it's not pigment color, it's structural color!", rather than their similarity, can parse as reflection/absorption vs refraction, and conceptually interbreed with real vs apparent object color. Stories like [1]. The "constructive interference" is "cancelling out" wavelengths, which "is why your eyes perceive" blue. Rather than say, here's one of several mechanisms for pigments to color objects. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Ts7CsJDpg&t=113s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Ts7CsJDpg&t=113s
mncharity 5y ago
Is it blue or green?[1] Are you just seeing the blue liner many pools have? Or reflected blue sky? Or maybe something added to the pool water? Working from limited data can be hard. If you've only ever seen one or few pools... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=swimming+pool&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=swimming+pool&tbm=isch