A Fable of Science and Politics

I have had this experience several times in my life; I come across clear enough evidence that settles for me an issue I had seen long disputed. At that point my choice is to either go back and try to persuade disputants, or to continue on to explore the new issues that this settlement raises. As Eliezer implicitly advises, after a short detour to tell a few disputants, I have usually chosen this second route. This is one explanation for the existence of settled but still disputed issues; people who learn the answer leave the conversation.

"I have had this experience several times in my life; I come across clear enough evidence that settles for me an issue I had seen long disputed. "

What if you made an error in judgement at that point, not having access to all the relevant facts, and the particular matter under dispute is of great importance to discovering the truth about reality?

Isn't that "settles for me" exactly what we see happening when people are unwilling to look at facts that might challenge their current mental models? Couldn't this lead to a cul-de-sac?

Matt, yes of course, one should be very cautious about drawing conclusions contrary to a large community of discussion.

The Blues and Greens were Catholics and Monophysites (I forget which was which). They once united and almost overthrew the emperor Justinian (his wife persuaded him not to flee) but Narses set them against each other and crushed their revolt.

I suspect some Greens will take a spectral analysis of cerulean, point out that it differs from standard blue paint and that there's some green in it, and argue that the sky really is green after all. A new debate might start on the proper definitions of "blue" and "green."

BTW, what happens if the sky is overcast and gray?

Great parable, but I don't think things would actually happen like that. If that really happened, a Green would almost certainly see the sky as just as green as a Blue would see it blue. Light underground is probably of substandard quality most of the time, no pigments underground exactly match the color of the sky, there have been experiments that have shown that native speakers of different languages will classify the same color as closer to different colors based on their native language. The Greens and the Blues may have the same language but their perception could change if they were raised and lived in their own isolated group.

Finally, there are some human above-ground cultures for which the color of the sky and the color of vegetation are the same word, Hawaiian uliuli for example. So we can just say it's all uliuli and then there's no more possible debate at all anyway.

You know, sometimes I think Daria's attitude is much healthier than Ferris's.

You forgot a few cases:

Loretta the Green looked at the sky and said: It is blue. Therefore, it is not the sky. Despite its inmensity, its openness, and those things that look like tufts of white cotton. Now that I think of it, those things don't look quite like cotton.

Bob the Groovy Blue said: Wow. Wait until I tell everyone that it's pink. (He was on acid, as usual).

Ed the Green said: Damm, it's not green. It's black.

Frank the Blue said: Hooray, it's not green. It's black.

(Obviously the last two arrived at night)

And finally John the Ecumenical said: Like I've always said. It's cerulean!

Or the crevice breaks through the ground and into a thickly covered rain-forest. Low and below, as far and high as the eye can see, all is green with tree-cover.

"In the time of the Roman Empire, civic life was divided between the Blue and Green factions".

That's wrong. In the later centuries of the Roman Empire, civic life was divided between the Red, White, Blue and Green factions. The first two vanished in the early part of the Byzantine Empire, so the description is true of the period of the Byzantine Empire under consideration (which still called itself the Roman Empire).

There is some reason to believe that the factions were more than just sporting associations, also handling some militia functions for the defence of Constantinople.

You forgot Gerald the Green, the sole survivor of the earthquake.

I agree with the others. Most greens would insist that the sky is really green through any number of rationalizations.

Nice example of Bliks in action. Literature is powered by such dramas, where people's individual mindset shifts the spectrum of every photon right or left of the reader, or the other protagonists, and the tragedy is that too few rays of light fall true, through a clear eye.

Ferris I suppose has seceded, too advanced to bother with the various foolish repercussions she knows will ring through the world under her feet from this new data. That's fine, she's too far ahead to go back anyway. ()

I worry that we (denizens of this website) are too confident that OUR vision is so sure. I'm a noob of course and not sure that I feel myself at home but I suggest caution. All those fools who see blue or green... they're sure they're right, too. Hubris is the danger.

Beautifily written. Just beautiful.

There's good evidence that human color vision shows enormous individual physical variability in certain aspects. The ratio of long- to medium-wavelength cone cells as measured in one study varied by over an order of magnitude across color-normal males. A non-trivial lucky fraction of women are believed to be tetrachromatic like birds and reptiles. Some aphakic people (with missing or damaged lenses) who can see UV light have reported that it appears to be bluish-white.

How about Gloop, who considers the possibility that the fact that the sky is blue now has no actual bearing on what the color of the sky might have been when the scraps of paper were written? He can entertain the possibility that the composition of the atmosphere might have changed during all the time people spent underground, so he establishes a laboratory to investigate if A) what particles were present in the air at the time the paper was written and B) if they were able to scatter blue or green light more efficiently?

Is it just me, or did Ferris have the best reaction? It seems to me that if everyone reacted this way to learning something so exciting, the world would be a much better place. it doesn't say what Ferris believed earlier, but perhaps the point is that it doesn't matter. What matters is the magic of the reality, not how it relates to prior conceptions.

Is it just me, or does this strike anyone as very similar to the God debate? Some differences are obvious (the sky's colors don't have books of morals and "history" on their sides, e.g.) but the allusion to hatred and war seems apt.

It seems to me, though, that if we were to flesh this comparison out, neither Ferris's or Daria's responses seem entirely correct (although they are the only two that make an attempt to act as rationally as possible.) Consider Richard Dawkins: A man obviously motivated by science and discovery (Ferris), but yet a man who also feels it necessary to evangelize on behalf of a seemingly obvious proposition (that the universe is able to function without a God).

In order that maximum rational discourse and action may be achieved, it is necessary to synthesize Ferrisian and Darian action into Dawkinsian action.

Arguing over minor semantics may also lead to a conflict as described.

1. Politics, social intercourse, public relationships were the major factors in our mind's evolution. Look up "Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality".

2. The concept bundling in politics (sky color, taxes, etc). You see, the political views "evolved" more, than were invented, thought over, whatever. Sometimes mammals seem to evolve something that seems more usefull to insects, fishes, or birds. And sometimes it really is (more usefull). And nowdays we may try to test it experimentally (genetic engenearing). But before making actual experiments, it isn't all that bright to jump to conclusions. And even after we'll prove the point, it isn't wise to criticize evolution in just the same way as any other disigner job.

The way our cultures with their law systems work isn't all that logical - from our viewpoint. They have all kind of odd evolutionary artifacts from the past - and from all the past attempts to "evolve future". But these evolved sets of roules (quiddich with Snitch) - actually do work. And we don't have good enoug models (as yet) to test more logical sets of roules without actual risk of bludshed. Currently, western (greece-roman) culture may dye our (low birthrate) just "for" its "test run" of granting rights to woman and childreen.

1. We aren't individually sentient beings, sorry. Our subcultures are sentient. We may support our part of some subculture's immage for years and even to try to improove it a bit... and that's it. And our collective minds (repeat) evolved politically...

It's a good thing the explorers came up in daytime. At sunset one might have proven that the sky was blue, green, red and yellow, for instance. A little later when the sun went down the sky would appear black with white spots and a white moon. But in the end a perception takes two to tango, some form of spirit/matter and the consciousness/senses that is interacting with it. Over time, both evolve in relation to the other. That's the real meaning of intelligent Design since consciousness is present at even molecular levels demonstrably. Co-evolutionary consciousness goes far beyond the duality of Blues and Greens.

Murphy the Green puffed his cheeks, whuffed in exasperation and thought "Why does Universe keep doing this to me! Let Accuracy Triumph Over Victory indeed. Does this data demand any changes to 'Sheep Bucket Truth', 'Light Switch Reliability', or 'Slavery Is Evil'? How about 'Trust And Audit' or 'Life Is Worth Defending'. No?" As his footsteps turned him homeward, his mind began to revisit other questions for which he had no satisfactory answer. I smile when he starts to think again, "What could the ancients have possible meant when they wrote about 'Outer Space'."

And the phrases are capitalized because that is the way he thinks about them.

Consider a slightly different story. Eddin and Ferris come across a strange gas cylinder and both look at the warning labels the cylinder has.
Eddin: Ah. Explosive. I better handle this carefully then.
Ferris: Ah. Explosive. I really need a ciggarette now...

I'd go with Eddin as being the more rational reaction. Ferris sees, and understands there's more to be learned, but doesn't seem to make any effort to internalise or actually understand this knowledge. Both explore, but in diferent ways. At the end of the day though, neither immediate reaction is bad. No one is required to learn something in a single moment. What matters is whether they have other reactions (and specifically, each other's reactions) in the minites, hours, and days to follow.

Nice parable, but the author has stacked the deck. The Blues and Greens were originally divided over the issue of the color of the sky. These groups then developed their own cultures and attitudes that had nothing to do with what they believed was the color of the sky, though they were thus identified. The world had evolved to a point that the Blues and Greens had developed mutual tolerance based on a deeper understanding of their common humanity. I suspect that in this new "secular" world, most people viewed the origins of their group name as fictive or ultimately unimportant and the news of the discovery of the True Color would not materially change their lives. The remaining Fundamentalists would, of course, respond in a variety of ways as outlined in the post and comments. It could get ugly but would probably not effect things too much. As the author notes, the discovery of a vast new world waiting to be exploited, would make the people see gold more than it would blue or green.

"Rachel glanced at the sky only once, briefly, before turning to study the expressions of the others who have inevitably followed her outside. She sees incredulity, defeat, unabashed wonder...

She proceeds to gather those with the most angry expressions into a group, and leans in to whisper something to them.

"Now the likelihood is that we can tell everyone back inside that the sky is green. All we'd have to do is make sure none of the Blues ever make it back, and we can say that they died in the earthquake. How many of you are able to pretend to be former Blues that have been converted? The rest of you can help seal up the entrance..."

Gregory looked at the sky contemplatively, arms folded across his chest. "It all seems very obvious to me," he said "that if anyone was REALLY concerned about the color of the sky, what they ought to have done was sent scouts to the surface immediately to determine who was correct, instead of arguing pointlessly without any evidence."

With a disgusted snort, he returned underground.

I find it disingenuous to entangle serious materially-based political concerns with abstract irrelevant political concerns. Whereas the blues and greens obviously shouldn't (and in real life, probably wouldn't) care what color an alien sky is, there are serious political disputes often tied to such abstract concerns regarding civil liberties, regarding the application of the law or the non-application of the law, regarding the right of the wealthy to victimize the poor, etc..

When people get caught up in complicated political institutions that propound dogmatic beliefs, those institutions were rarely or never founded to be dogmatic by accident. Cynics use theological justifications for their material (occasionally psychological) considerations:

• Christianity was used to justify the class structure (serfdom & lordship) of feudalism

• Social Darwinism was used to justify colonialism, then eugenics

• American nationalism is used to justify unlimited wars and crackdowns on civil rights

• Muslim 'terrorists' use Islam to justify what they see as the only plausible method of defending their country from imperialism (the mass of their goals isn't to spread 'terror' but actually to regain political control of their own countries)

The point is that while fighting the justification may not be in itself a relevant concern, influencing the material concern that spawned the theological justification to begin with is often very important. Are corporations people? --Nobody really gives a fuck about the abstract question because everyone knows they aren't (83% of the American population).

The trouble is that the question of corporate personhood is merely an excuse to shift more power into the hands of corporations. While debating whether corporations are people is a waste of time, it is not a waste of time to fight the material reality of corporate personhood which means having even less democratic elections in the US than we already have.

You might also say that the blue-green feud is analogous to the debate about the existence of a God or gods having created the universe (if there were an impermeable or near-impermeable layer of obsidian between the cave-dwellers and the surface making discovery of the truth practically impossible). The question only becomes relevant when the blue and green leaders are trying to become president of their underground community: the green candidate is backed by the Green-Dye-Makers' Guild and the blue candidate is backed by the Blue-Dye-Makers' Guild, and convincing voters either way will bring in either Guild innumerably more customers. (The same critique, of course, is applicable as each is rallying war forces.)

Furthermore, if it never did become a debate concerned with material reality, then people can think whatever they want. As long as they accept that since blue is our best guess, the only responsible thing is to base our social models on the idea that the sky is indeed blue until proven otherwise. Because in real life, the truth of these things is never as obvious as the sky-color example, it is perfectly admissible to allow minority opinions.

I've been consistently bothered thinking about this story and I think the biggest issue I have with it is the idea that there is a right answer at all. I know this just puts me in the same category as the people at the college who teach everyone that Green and Blue are equally valid viewpoints, but it seems to me that the truth of the matter is that perception is so subjective and societally constructed. The other people in this thread have discussed this as a matter of the Greens rationalizing, hypothetically "seeing" the wrong color because they want to, but I think that argument is fundamentally wrong because the way we view color has changed so dramatically over history and is different among cultures. It's like the base system for numbers, or even language, to an extent-- once you learn it, it's really hard to snap out of it and think in a different way. I feel like the entire story, and the idea of the rightness of the Blues being confirmed, is just privileging a particular point of view as "right". Maybe this is just me arguing for a less objective reality, but even though I read this a few days ago it's been tickling the edge of my mind, bothering me.

This story isn't about politics... it's about religion.

Politics is actually quite different, because politics has a proven genetic basis, and actual effects on the world. People don't follow different political "colours" just because they are following a meaningless tradition. People inherit their parents' politics, but largely through genetics. People have different personalities, so they want different things for their countries.

Politics is still a little bit like this article, but it's misleading to portray that as the main factor in politics. Because it isn't.

I think it is the main factor in religion though.

Maybe there could be a paragraph in a box or something at the bottom of each post that contains the "take home" lesson for each post, to make it easier for people who are trying to review.

It's grue. Clearly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoPL7BExSQU

Interesting.

Gordon, High Pontiff of the First And Last Temple of Greenism, gasps — but then he remembers the first paragraph of the Greenist Catechism: "Tell the truth always, for the Blue Devil is the Father of Lies. Truth is good, because God the Green commands it. Lying and hypocrisy — living by untruth, yet seeming truthful by all outward signs , and benefiting richly thereby — are the ways of the Blues and of their father the Devil." The God of Greenism, the Father of Truth, has lost Gordon's allegiance. Gordon, now inwardly Blue, joyfully returns to his luxurious suite in the Temple, where he prepares his next sermon: "The Sky IS Green" and plans other ways to inspire his devout, trusting followers to revive the ancient Anti-Blue Crusades.

Only tenuously relevant, but fun to think of in conjunction:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-blue-and-how-do-we-see-color-2015-2

The Blues advocate taxes on individual incomes, the Greens advocate taxes on merchant sales; the Blues advocate stricter marriage laws, while the Greens wish to make it easier to obtain divorces; the Blues take their support from the heart of city area [..] Not every Blue or every Green citizen takes the "Blue" or "Green" position on every issue, but it would be rare to find a city merchant who believed the sky was blue, and yet advocated an individual tax and freer marriage laws.

Shouldn't it be rare for the city merchant to advocate for a tax on merchant sales and freer marriage laws?

Favoring individual taxes is mentioned as a blue preference, so it would not be rare for the "city merchant who believes the sky is blue" to advocate for it.

Feels nice to see my name in a story. This fact about Romans is just so tasty.

It was hard to really imagine someone getting so emotionally caught up about a fact. I didn't expect to find it so hard.

Most fights are never about the underlying fact but it's tribal, about winning. If people cared about knowing the truth it would be discussions not debates.