Basic Scientific ReasoningBasic Scientific Reasoning

11/19/2004

OutlineOutline

• What is Science?• 2-4-6 Problem• H-D / D-N Method• The Quine-Duhem Thesis:

Christine Ladd-Franklin’s falsification of Helmholtz’s theory of color perception.

What is Science?What is Science?Astrology

Psychoanalysis

Physics

Psychophysics

Mathematics

Phrenology

Biology

Psychology

Scientology

Economics

Cognitive Science

Chemistry

Sociology

History

Cognitive Ethology

Defining ScienceDefining Science

• Is science defined by its method of reasoning?– Its results?– The phenomena it studies?– An attitude towards evidence?– A certain methodology?– Scientists?– The power relationships in which it is embedded?– Its value to the larger culture?– Use of (grounding on) mathematics?

Why should I care?Why should I care?

• ‘Science says that…’ ‘The top scientists think that…’

• States that have (or are) debated teaching creationism in elementary science education (2002-present):– Georgia– Kentucky– Kansas– Dover, Pennsylvania– Maryland– The President

A DemonstrationA Demonstration

• So how does ‘real’ science work?• 2-4-6 problem

Preliminary Lessons from Preliminary Lessons from 2-4-62-4-6

1. Science is an activity of real people who work in a social environment

2. There is nothing ‘special’ about the methods of reasoning used in science

3. When scientists ‘converge’ on the answer is often determined by social factors.

Structures of Reasoning Structures of Reasoning on display in 2-4-6on display in 2-4-6

Verification - Affirming the consequent:IF P THEN QQTHEREFORE, P

Example:IF aliens killed JFK, THEN there would be questions

regarding the ‘single-shooter’ theory.

There are questions regarding the ‘single-shooter’ theory.

THEREFORE, aliens killed JFK.

VerificationVerificationIF the rule is ‘Any three numbers such that x

< y < z’, THEN 2-4-6 will fit.2-4-6 does fitTHEREFORE, the rule is ‘Any three numbers

such that x < y < z’

IF the rule is ‘Any three numbers (x, y, z > 0) such that y = x+2 and z = y+2’, THEN 2-4-6 will fit.

2-4-6 does fit.THEREFORE, the rule is ‘Any three numbers (x, y, z

> 0) such that y = x+2 and z = y+2’

Verification’s ProblemsVerification’s Problems

• Can’t ensure the truth of the theory that entails the verified prediction

• Can’t distinguish between two theories that both entail the verified prediction

Structures of Reasoning Structures of Reasoning on display in 2-4-6on display in 2-4-6

Falsification - Modus Tollens:IF P THEN QNOT-QTHEREFORE, NOT-P

Example:IF aliens killed JFK, THEN Jack Ruby is an alien.

Jack Ruby is NOT an alien.

THEREFORE, aliens did NOT kill JFK.

FalsificationFalsificationApplication to 2-4-6:

IF the rule is ‘any three numbers (x,y,z) such that x > y < z’, THEN the sequence ‘4-2-8’ will fit.

The sequence 4-2-8 does NOT fit.THEREFORE, the rule is NOT ‘any three numbers

(x,y,z) such that x > y < z’

IF the rule is ‘any three symbols (x,y,z) such that x < y < z in their standard order’, THEN the sequence ‘a-b-c’ will fit.

The sequence a-b-c does NOT fit.THEREFORE, the rule is NOT ‘any three symbols

(x,y,z) such that x < y < z in their standard order’

Falsification’s Virtues & Falsification’s Virtues & VicesVices

• Still can’t ensure the truth of the theory that entails the verified prediction

• CAN distinguish between two theories, so long as there is at least one prediction that is entailed by one & NOT by the other.

The DN Model of The DN Model of ExplanationExplanation

• Explanations are sound arguments (valid w/ true premises) that entail the event to be explained.

L1, L2, … Ln

F1, F2, … Fn

E

Explanans

Explanandum

Laws (usually conditionals)Facts

Phenomenon Explained

ExampleExample

• Explanations are sound arguments (valid w/ true premises) that entail the event to be explained.

For all cases, if you stimulate the L cone, the subject experiences a sensation of red.

My L cone is stimulated

Therefore, I have a sensation of red.

Explanans

Explanandum

H-DH-D

• Notice the relation to falsification’s H-D method:

For all cases, if you stimulate the L cone, the subject will experience a sensation of red. I am not experience red

Therefore, my cone is not stimulated

Explanans

Explanandum

Notice also that all explanandi are potential predictions!

Real scientists don’t work that way.

Quine-Duhem ThesisQuine-Duhem Thesis

Any hypothesis can be defended in light of any evidence. (if you’re willing to make “drastic enough adjustments elsewhere” in your system of beliefs.)

IF Hypothesis is true, THEN Prediction.

Prediction is NOT true

THEREFORE, the hypothesis is NOT true

VALID

DogmatismDogmatism

Any proposition can be made consistent with any scientific theory, if one tries hard enough– Gender, Intelligence, Variability and

Pre- and Post-Darwin Biology– Myths of Gender by Anne Fausto-

Sterling

Here, the Devil lurksHere, the Devil lurks

IF my Hypothesis is true,

Prediction is NOT true

THEREFORE, at least one of (1) – (N) is NOT true

(1) AND My apparatus works,

(2) AND My experiment is correctly designed,

(3) AND My subject is of interest to others, …

THEN, prediction.

(N) AND ….

Delineating Phenomena Delineating Phenomena w/in ‘Memory’w/in ‘Memory’

Damn that Microsoft!

Have to do it online.

Raise your hand if you Raise your hand if you had:had:

• BAG• DOG• FAN• GAS• HAT• KID• LOG• PAD

• SOD• VEX• WIN• ZIP

Learning CurveLearning Curve

Definitions of ‘Memory’Definitions of ‘Memory’

• Maybe, my memory for IP addresses isn’t really ‘memory’?

• http://inquiry.wustl.edu/newFrames/modules.php?mod_id=437

For all normal humans, we only have the ability to remember 7 digits +/- 2

I’m a normal human

Therefore, I can only remember 7 digits +/- 2

Philosophers:Philosophers:

• (Plato / Aristotle?), Bergson, Russell, Ryle all distinguish between knowing how and knowing that. This distinction is transposed into memory:– I remember how to do arithmetic.– I remember that 2+2=4.– I remember how to get to Sears– I remember that Sears is on the

corner of …

Further Distinctions:Further Distinctions:

• I just remembered that I am supposed to be in class!

• Remember when Janet Jackson had her ‘wardrobe malfunction’?

• Remember where you were when the Towers collapsed?

• Pavlov’s dog.• Priming

Motor Skills

Memory

LTMSTM

Non-Declarative (Implicit)

Declarative (Explicit)

Episodic (Events)

Semantic (Facts)

Priming Classical Conditioning

1. Splitting Dissociable Kinds 1. Splitting Dissociable Kinds of Memoryof Memory

H.M. from the Perspective H.M. from the Perspective of Cognitive of Cognitive

NeuropsychologyNeuropsychology• Develop Taxonomies

of Memory• Characterize

Different Types of Memory

• Understand Neuro-cognitive Mechanisms

Memory

LTMSTM

Non-Declarative (Implicit)

Declarative (Explicit)

Episodic (Events)

Semantic (Facts)

Priming Classical Conditioning

Motor Skills

The Hippocampus The Hippocampus

Identify set of tasks on

which H.M. succeeds

(TS).

Identify set of tasks on

which he fails (TF).

Conjecture some

cognitive faculty

required for each task

in TS and for no task

in TF.

On which tasks does H.M. On which tasks does H.M. succeed?succeed?

• Perceptual and motor.• I.Q. tests.• Mirror Drawing.• Gollins Partial

Pictures.• Priming.• Classical and Operant

Conditioning.• Language.

On which tasks does H.M. On which tasks does H.M. fail?fail?

• Conscious recognition of facts and events (Squire)

• Regardless of kind of test (free recall, cued recall, recognition)

• Regardless of material (e.g., words, digits, faces, mazes, life events)

• Regardless of sensory modality• Conclusion: Loss of “Declarative

Memory”

Characteristics of Characteristics of Observational ResearchObservational Research

• Make some sort of record and analyse data obtained from it

• Does NOT manipulate or ‘intervene’ in the scenario.

Complexity of ObservationComplexity of Observation

• Expectations & Perception– Anomalous playing cards– Multi-modal feedback (Data from lyric

study)– Underdetermined Perception

• Influence of early hypotheses– Ratman study data

• Extending Perception w/ Instruments– Galileo / Hale-Bopp

Anomalous Playing CardsAnomalous Playing Cards

• Link

Ramones CorrectRamones Correct

Ramones IncorrectRamones Incorrect

Naturalistic ObservationNaturalistic Observation

• Observations made in the ‘natural’ setting of the organism.

• Researchers must immerse themselves in the setting.

• Task: to describe the setting, events, individuals observed w/out influencing the situation

• Often Qualitative, not Quantitative• Often NOT a matter of testing a

hypothesis, but rather gathering data to develop a testable hypothesis.

DataData

• Field notes, journal entries, interviews, recording ‘artifacts’

Famous Naturalistic Famous Naturalistic ObservationsObservations

• Jane Goodall• Charles Darwin• Survivor?

GoodallGoodall

• ‘Termite fishing’ and tool-use• Click Here

DarwinDarwin

• Sexual dimorphism is caused by three possible mechanisms:

1. mechanisms of sexual selection,2. fecundity selection3. ecological causation, e.g., resource-

partitioning

Darwin confirmedDarwin confirmed

Naturalistic Study 1Naturalistic Study 1

• Marmots• Cows • Horses• Hare • Squirrel• Deer

Problems for Systematic Problems for Systematic ObservationObservation

• Equipment (Nielson ratings)• Reactivity of subjects• Reliability (Mate selection in Blue

Tit)• Sampling• Confirmation Bias

Systematic ObservationSystematic Observation

• Careful, often quantitative, observations of one or more specific behaviors.

• Observations made in ‘quasi-natural’ setting

• Researchers often do NOT immerse themselves in the setting

• Quantitative, not qualitative (using coding systems)

• Often a matter of testing a hypothesis

Wash U Fa06 (n=3 / 1m / Wash U Fa06 (n=3 / 1m / 2f)2f)

On th

e job

(wor

k for

pay

)

In tr

ansit

Get e

xerc

ise

In cl

ass

Off-lin

e stu

dy/cl

ass a

ssign

men

ts

On-lin

e stu

dy/cl

ass a

ssign

men

ts

TOTAL of

Stu

dy

On-lin

e (p

erso

nal)

Tasks

of d

aily l

iving Eat

On th

e te

lepho

ne/ce

llpho

ne

Relax/s

ocial

ize

Sleep

Other

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

UCSD Wi05 (N=84 / 54f / UCSD Wi05 (N=84 / 54f / 30m)30m)

On th

e job

(wor

k for

pay

)

In tr

ansit

Get e

xerc

ise

In cl

ass

Off-lin

e stu

dy/cl

ass a

ssign

men

ts

On-lin

e stu

dy/cl

ass a

ssign

men

ts

TOTAL of

Stu

dy

On-lin

e (p

erso

nal)

Tasks

of d

aily l

iving Eat

On th

e te

lepho

ne/ce

llpho

ne

Relax/s

ocial

izeSlee

pOth

er0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

McDaniel Fa04 (n=4 / 3m / McDaniel Fa04 (n=4 / 3m / 1f)1f)

On

the

job (w

ork

for p

ay)

In tr

ansit

Get

exe

rcise

In c

lass

Off-

line

stud

y/cla

ss a

ssign

men

ts

On-

line

stud

y/cla

ss a

ssign

men

ts

TOTAL

of S

tudy

On-

line

(per

sona

l)

Tasks

of d

aily

living Eat

On

the

telep

hone

/cell

phon

e

Relax/

socia

lize

Sleep

Oth

er0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Wash U Sp04 (n=11 / 4f / Wash U Sp04 (n=11 / 4f / 7m)7m)

On th

e job

(wor

k for

pay

)

In tr

ansit

Get e

xerc

ise

In cl

ass

Off-lin

e stu

dy/cl

ass a

ssign

men

ts

On-lin

e stu

dy/cl

ass a

ssign

men

ts

TOTAL of

Stu

dy

On-lin

e (p

erso

nal)

Tasks

of d

aily l

iving Eat

On th

e te

lepho

ne/ce

llpho

ne

Relax/s

ocial

izeSlee

pOth

er0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

UCSD Fa03 (n=10 / 5f / UCSD Fa03 (n=10 / 5f / 5m) 5m)

On th

e job

(wor

k fo

r pay

)

In tr

ansit

Get e

xerc

ise

In c

lass

Off-lin

e st

udy/

class

ass

ignm

ents

On-lin

e st

udy/

class

ass

ignm

ents

TOTAL of

Stu

dy

On-lin

e (p

erso

nal)

Tasks

of d

aily

living Eat

On th

e te

lepho

ne/c

ellph

one

Relax/

socia

lize

Sleep

Other

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Row 16

Row 17

Wash U Fa05 (n=3 / 1m / Wash U Fa05 (n=3 / 1m / 2f)2f)

On th

e job

(wor

k fo

r pay

)

In tr

ansit

Get e

xerc

ise

In c

lass

Off-lin

e st

udy/

class

ass

ignm

ents

On-lin

e st

udy/

class

ass

ignm

ents

TOTAL of

Stu

dy

On-lin

e (p

erso

nal)

Tasks

of d

aily

living Eat

On th

e te

lepho

ne/c

ellph

one

Relax/

socia

lize

Sleep

Other

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Row 96

Row 97

UCSD Wi05 (N=84 / 54f / UCSD Wi05 (N=84 / 54f / 30m)30m)

12/3

0/18

99

01/2

3/19

00

02/0

7/19

00

11/2

4/19

00

10/0

8/19

00

01/0

6/19

00

10/1

5/19

00

02/0

6/19

00

02/1

5/19

00

02/1

5/19

00

01/2

6/19

00

03/1

6/19

00

04/2

2/19

01

01/2

0/19

00

03/15/1900

05/10/1900

03/12/1900

04/09/1900

05/22/1900

01/30/1900

06/22/1900

02/14/1900

02/26/1900

03/08/1900

01/21/1900

08/21/1900

02/16/1901

02/22/1900

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

On the job (work for pay) In transit Get exercise In class Off-line study/class assignments On-line study/class assignments TOTAL of Study On-line (personal) Tasks of daily living Eat On the telephone/cellphone Relax/socialize Sleep Other

On the job (work for pay) In transit Get exercise In class Off-line study/class assignments On-line study/class assignments TOTAL of Study On-line (personal) Tasks of daily living Eat On the telephone/cellphone Relax/socialize Sleep Other

McDaniel Fa04 (n=4 / 3m / McDaniel Fa04 (n=4 / 3m / 1f)1f)

On th

e job

(wor

k fo

r pay

)

In tr

ansit

Get e

xerc

ise

In c

lass

Off-lin

e st

udy/

class

ass

ignm

ents

On-lin

e st

udy/

class

ass

ignm

ents

TOTAL of

Stu

dy

On-lin

e (p

erso

nal)

Tasks

of d

aily

living Eat

On th

e te

lepho

ne/c

ellph

one

Relax/

socia

lize

Sleep

Other

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Row 16

Row 17

Wash U Sp04 (n=11 / 4f / Wash U Sp04 (n=11 / 4f / 7m)7m)

On th

e job

(wor

k fo

r pay

)

In tr

ansit

Get e

xerc

ise

In c

lass

Off-lin

e st

udy/

class

ass

ignm

ents

On-lin

e st

udy/

class

ass

ignm

ents

TOTAL of

Stu

dy

On-lin

e (p

erso

nal)

Tasks

of d

aily

living Eat

On th

e te

lepho

ne/c

ellph

one

Relax/

socia

lize

Sleep

Other

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Row 16

Row 17

UCSD Fa03 (n=10 / 5f / UCSD Fa03 (n=10 / 5f / 5m) 5m)

Coding SystemsCoding Systems

• Marmots 2

SamplingSampling

• Continuous• Time Sampling• Event Sampling

Dissociation and the Dissociation and the Taxonomy of MemoryTaxonomy of Memory

• A major theme in current studies of both humans and experimental animals is that memory is not a single entity but is composed of separate systems (Weiskrantz, 1990; Squire, 1992; Schacter and Tulving, 1994). The dissociation between declarative (explicit) and nondeclarative (implicit) memory is based on studies of experimental animals as well as amnesic patients and normal subjects showing that fact-and-event memory is distinct from other kinds of memory (skills, habits, and priming).– Squire and Knowlton

Memory Dissociation Memory Dissociation Argument in PhilosophyArgument in Philosophy

• Some X is a ‘natural kind’ iff in no possible world do parts of X exist without the whole and X still exists in that world (I.e. H2 w/out the O is not water).

• Hume’s claim: Two events are causally connected if and only if one might occur without the other.

• Why?– Because nothing can cause itself.– And if two events are necessarily conjoined,

they are the same event (with the exception of two events that are both caused by a third event like ‘Socrates dying’ and ‘Xantippe becoming a widow’).

Videos!Videos!

• KC

Biases in the Biases in the characterization of characterization of

ambiguous phenomenaambiguous phenomena

Famous FailuresFamous Failures

American 19American 19thth century century ‘Polygeny’‘Polygeny’

• The hypothesis: the ranking of races according to intelligence can be established objectively by a physical measurement, namely brain size

• Samuel George Morton 1830s – 1850s studied the cranial capacity of a library of skulls categorized by race.

Morton:Morton:

• Data?– Obtained a collection of over 600

skulls, mostly of native Americans & published a study Crania Americana in 1839

– Then obtained a collection of mummy skulls from Egypt and published Crania Aegyptiaca in 1844.

• Measurement device? – = mustard seed, that is, until it

started producing unfavorable results, then switch to BBs (1/8 inch diameter steel ball).

Egyptians:Egyptians:

Crania AmericaCrania America Categories Categories

• Malay• American• Ethiopian• Caucasian• Mongolian

The DataThe Data

65947829Ethiopian

6010082144American

64898118Malay

69938310Mongolian

751098752Caucasian

SmallestLargestMeanNRace

11stst: Crania America: Crania America

• Morton: mean 82 inches.– Morton divided the ‘American’ skulls into

‘Toltecans’ and ‘Barbarous tribes’. • 82 inches is the average of the ‘Barbarous tribes’.• The real average is 80.2• BUT, Morton’s failed to distinguish other groups =

such as the Incan Peruvians who have an mean of 74.36, BUT make up 25% of the sample.

• Iroquois, on the other hand, contribute only 3 skulls that have a mean near 87.

• Gould corrected the biases and came up with an mean of 83.79

22ndnd: Over-count : Over-count CaucasiansCaucasians

• The 17 ‘Hindu’ skulls, whose mean is 75, were eliminated from the Caucasian sample BUT 3, whose mean was near 87 were admitted. Why?

• Once these are restored, and the samples weighted, the Caucasian mean is 84.45

• (And Eskimos, if pulled out from the ‘Mongol’ group, get a mean of 86.8)

22ndnd: : Crania Aegyptiaca Crania Aegyptiaca CategoriesCategories

• Caucasian– Pelasgic– Semitic– Egyptian

• Negroid• Negro

173Negro

679Negroid

3980 Egyptian

582 Semitic

2188 Pelasgic

Caucasian

NMean Capacity

People

Creeping Bais 1: Creeping Bais 1: CategorizationCategorization

• The skulls were from Mummies – so on what grounds is he categorizing & sub-categorizing race?

• “Negroid” is someone he believed was black, but had some ‘caucasian’ blood.

• His subdivision of the Caucasian race is based on, guess what? The bulbous-ness of the forehead. The mean of the entire group is 82.15

Creeping Bias 2: GenderCreeping Bias 2: Gender• Male heads tend to be bigger than

female heads (because male bodies tend to be bigger than female bodies). Since this data is based on mummified remains, we can adjust for gender.

87.5 (2)75.5 (4)Negroid

73 (1)Negro

86.5 (24)77.2 (22)Caucasian

MaleFemaleRace

Incidentally…Incidentally…

• There is a great variation in the body size of native Americans. If we rank Morton’s Crania America categories according to typical body size (Seminole largest, Peruvians smallest), we match his cranial capacity ranking exactly.

Creeping Bias 3: Creeping Bias 3: Subconscious mis-Subconscious mis-

measurementmeasurement• Morton published his entire data tables,

including a couple of the tables measured with both seed AND lead shot. The averages were adjusted thus:– 111 Indian skulls: +2.2 inches– 19 Caucasians: +1.8 inches– 18 Africans: +5.4 inches

– The measurement tool most likely to exemplify a priori bias did.

Here are the full Here are the full categories:categories:

• Modern Caucasian Group– Teutonic Family

• Germans• English• Anglo-Americans

– Pelasgic Family– Celtic Family– Indostanic Family– Semitic Family– Nilotic Family

– Malay Group– Malayan Family– Polynesian Family

•Mongolian Group–Chinese Family

•Ancient Caucasian Group–Pelasgic Family–Nilotic Family

•Negro Group–Native African Family–American-born Negros–Hottentot Family–Australians

•American Group–Toltecan Family

•Peruvians•Mexicans

–Barbarous Tribes

And here’s his data:And here’s his data:

• Excel File

Summary: Biases creep:Summary: Biases creep:

1. Shifting categories2. Ambiguous measurements will

reveal prejudices (artifacts of instruments)

3. Failure to consider alternative hypotheses (I.e. body size / gender)

4. Miscalculations (confirmation bais)

(Brief) History of Color (Brief) History of Color ScienceScience

Basic Schema:

Hermann von HelmholtzHermann von Helmholtz(1821-1894)(1821-1894)

Short = Purple Middle = Green Long = Red

Historical Note:Historical Note:• In 1877, Ladd-Franklin became the first woman

to attend (albeit unofficially) Johns Hopkins where she studied mathematics.

• She wrote a dissertation under the supervision of C.S. Pierce. It was published in 1883, but her Ph.D. was not awarded until 1926!

• Even though she had studied under Helmholtz and had published a great deal in psychological journals, she was never admitted to the American Psychological Association meetings to present her papers.

• While she lectured at John Hopkins, Columbia, Clark, Harvard and Chicago, she never held an official academic post, and she was rarely paid.

• Her book Color and Color Theories was finally published in 1929, one year before her death.

Ladd-Franklin (1847-1930)Ladd-Franklin (1847-1930)IF stimulating the long-wavelength cone yields a red experience, and stimulating the middle-wavelength cone yields a green experience, THEN stimulating both the long and middle-wavelength cone would….

yield an experience of reddish-green

L-F’s argument (L-F’s argument (≈≈1892)1892)

IF stimulating the long-wavelength cone yields a red experience, and stimulating the middle-wavelength cone yields a green experience, THEN stimulating both the long and middle-wavelength cone would yield an experience of reddish-green

Stimulating L and M yields an experience of yellow.

THEREFORE, Helmholtz’s theory is NOT true

Yellow does NOT look like reddish-green.

THEREFORE, yellow is NOT reddish-green.

Good Argument Right?

Why not?Why not?“Helmholtz deemed it illegitimate or at least

untrustworthy to draw conclusions as to physiological processes from the direct psychological character of the sensations”-Von Kries

Q-D for HelmholtzQ-D for Helmholtz

IF stimulating the Long-wavelength cone yeilds a red experience, and stimulating the middle-wavelength cone yields a green experience, THEN stimulating both the Long and Middle-wavelength cone would yield an experience of reddish-green

Stimulating L and M yields an experience of yellow.

THEREFORE, Helmholtz’s theory is NOT true

THEREFORE, Yellow is NOT reddish-green.

Yellow does NOT look like reddish-green.

BUT: One cannot draw conclusions about the physiology of color from this fact, so it does not follow that:

yellow is not reddish-green or greenish-red.

Note:Note:

The Gestalt Psychologist David Katz made the phenomenology of color appearance the starting point for a theory of color (1908).

Vindication:Vindication:In 1957, Dorothea Jameson & Dale

Hurvich proposed what is now called the ‘opponent-processing’ model of color perception. According to it, colors are given by mixing 4 primary colors which are arranged in opponent pairs:Red GreenBlue Yellow

This is now the dominant theory in color science

VindicationVindicationPerformed by Jameson and Hurvich in 1957. A test light is shown to a subject. If the light appears greenish, a red-appearing light is added until the test light no longer appears at all greenish.

Jameson and Hurvich Jameson and Hurvich ResultsResults

Cone Sensitivity CurvesCone Sensitivity Curves

Mathematical Transformation Mathematical Transformation of Cone Sensitivity Functionsof Cone Sensitivity Functions

• We decorrelate the responses of the L, M and S cones by weighting each signal with a constant, and combining those results:

C1() = 1.0L() + 0.0M() + 0.0S()

C2() = -0.59L() + 0.80M() + -0.12S()

C3() = -0.34L() + -0.11M() + 0.93S()

Opponent Processing Opponent Processing ModelModel

Falsification (finally)Falsification (finally)• In 1977, Edwin Land produced a

falsification:The particular relationship between the stimulus of the L, M and S cones is both NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT for determining a particular color sensation. (Given trichromatic perceivers and normal conditions)

Helmholtz

(sufficiency) Produce a case where two objects stimulate the L, M and S cones in exactly the same way, but produce two different color sensations(necessity) Produce a case where two objects stimulate the L, M and S cones in different ways, yet produce the same color sensation.

Two falsifications required:

MondriansMondrians

5.8 (L)3.2 (M)1.6 (S)

These values held for red, green and blue patches, yet the patches still appeared red, green and blue!

5.8 (L)3.2 (M)1.6 (S)

Tristimulus values Tristimulus values sufficient for color sufficient for color

appearanceappearanceAccording to the Helmholtz theory, IF objects reflect the same tristimulus values, THEN they will appear to be the same color.

A patch in the first Mondrian reflects the tristimulus values of 5.8(L), 3.2 (M) and 1.6 (S), yet looks red.A patch in the second Mondrian reflects the tristimulus values of 5.8(L), 3.2 (M) and 1.6 (S), yet looks blue.

(from 1) IF the Helmholtz theory is correct, THEN the patch in the first Mondrian will appear to be the same color as the patch in the second Mondrian.They do NOT appear to be the same color.

THEREFORE, the Helmholtz theory is NOT correct.

Tristimulus values Tristimulus values necessary for color necessary for color

appearanceappearanceAccording to the Helmholtz theory, IF two objects appear to be the same color, THEN they will reflect the same tristimulus values.

Before Land turned the projectors on, the red patch looks red.

After Land turned the projectors on, the red patch looks red.

(from 1) IF the Helmholtz theory is correct, THEN the patch that continues to look red must reflect the same tristimulus values when the projectors are on & off.

The patch that continues to look red does NOT reflect the same tristimulus values when the projectors are on as it does when they are off.

THEREFORE, the Helmholtz theory is NOT correct.

Helmholtz’ responseHelmholtz’ response(from 1) IF the Helmholtz theory is correct, THEN the patch that continues to look red must reflect the same tristimulus values when the projectors are on & off.

The patch looks red w/ the projector OFF and it reflects tristimulus values x, y, z

THEREFORE, the Helmholtz theory is NOT correct.

The patch looks red w/ the projector ON and it reflects tristimulus values a, b, c

BUT: One cannot draw conclusions about the physiology of color from this fact, so…

The patch looks red w/ the projectors OFF, but it is really isn’t. (or vice versa)

TimelineTimeline

1856: Helmholtz proposes his theory

1892: Christine Ladd-Franklin formulates her argument.

1957: Theory change following Jameson & Hurvich

1977: Land’s Falsification

64 years! 20 years

1908: Gestalts.

Why Theory Change?Why Theory Change?

• New Technology (Galileo's Telescope)

• Socio-cultural factors (Ladd-Franklin)

• Mathematics (Jameson & Hurvich)

Alternatives for Alternatives for DemarcationDemarcation

1. Verification2. Falsification3. Lakatos’ ‘Progressive v.

Degenerative’4. Sociological factors5. Explanation in terms of

mechanism.