= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Greg2 comments on Fake Reductionism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
"The man should have investigated the rainbow scientifically and then feel wonder when he understood the physics behind it."
But surely a sense of wonder doesn't *necessarily* have to come from scientific understanding? But I'd agree that if a scientific understanding destroyed Keats's sense of wonder, then that was a bug in Keats, not a bug in scientific understanding.
I wonder that he didn't stop to wonder how amazing it was that light reflecting through a bunch of water droplets could create such a beautiful image in your mind.
That's roughly what I think when I see a rainbow. Same with things like sun dogs, or a gorgeous blood-orange sunset.
Just because I understand what is happening doesn't mean I find them any less beautiful. And besides, suppose I'm watching such a scene with someone who doesn't understand what they are seeing? I get to explain how such a thing can be, and in some cases how easy they are to reproduce.
I dunno, I find that pretty awesome myself. I honestly don't think Keats could have actually understood how rainbows formed and still feel cheated.