CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Can it be argued that the visual sense of an absence of light is a color? Particularly because of how we perceive it interacting with colors in general...
I suppose it could, but remember that in normal life you never encounter a true absence of light. When light is really absent, you see a lot more than just black. It's pretty crazy the way it can play tricks on you, actually. It's something you'd need to experience to understand.
I have experienced it before. It's interesting what you see when there is nothing to see. It means it's not the eyes that see, but rather the mind. I think that's a whole different topic though.
To argue against my first statement, black is nowhere on the color spectrum since that is a light spectrum. This means it can't be a color even though it is a visual sensation.
This depends on how you approach the idea of what is a color.
Color is a cultural concept. What cultures agree is color 'x' has changed over time, for instance in Old English 'yellow' was included in what is considered by many to day to be 'red' on our current color spectrum. That is to say the concept of yellow had not been culturally distinct from red by that population at that time, not that yellow things did not exist by our current concept of the current colors.
So is black a color? Yes. Many cultures perceive black to be a color.
The cultural aspect has more to do with language than color itself. All the various colors have an objectively definable location on the light spectrum or through combining various light spectrums (such as grey scales). Whether or not a given spectrum location or combination has it's own name or is differentiated from other spectrum locations has nothing to do with the fact that it is actually there. Black, or the absence of light isn't on a color spectrum and so cannot be a color. Regardless of perception, black will never be on a color spectrum.
We are using mixed measures here. In context of each argument they are both correct.
This is why I noted the idea depends on how you approach the issue. You are using photons and the color spectrum as a measure, I am using cultural perceptions. I saw several people take your route (you are the most concise I think in your points) so I decided to take my route as no one at the time had articulated it yet.
If you can not create "true black" black that is quantifiably as dark as it can get, then it is not a color. All of the other colors (excluding the primary ones of course), if meticulously mixed together can make other colors that on the color scale matches perfectly with that colors number, anything even a point of the way off is a shade.
No you didnt. What you basically said was "you can't make black, you can only make shades of black.", which means you agreed that black is a color, but only shades of it can be made.
For all the colors that are not primary, true versions of them can be made, by mixing other colors, black and white are the only two that can not be made, that are not primary colors.
Strictly speaking, a perfect mix of 'perfect' primary color pigments would result in black. The fact that this typically results in greys or browns is due to our pigments being 'imperfect' in regards to reflecting all of one section of the spectrum and none of the others.
And a perfect mix of primary colored light results in white.
This is the first I'm hearing of this. I've only ever seen gray get made.
Because this is theoretical 'perfect' pigment, that reflects 100% of the primary color in question, and absorbs all other visible light. In practice, we don't have anything that approaches that. We see grey because, while most of the light gets absorbs, each pigment is still reflecting a small amount of the entire spectrum.
Black can also be made via the use of two filters of differing primary color.
those 'color's are shades. Black is a shade, it's used to make other colors darker. gray is a shade of white and black. Pink, is a shade of red and white. magenta is a shade of white and red as well.
Yes, that's what my argument is. It's augmented with the realization that you can make colors by mixing primary colors, but you can't make white, black, or any of the other shades you mentioned doing so.
I have continually stated, but in only my last argument official said, that a shade is different that a color, in that it can't be made by mixing the primary colors.
Dunn Edwards can make the shade's black or white by using raw materials of that shade. The company can also make the other shades you mentioned by mixing colors with shades. To get lighter, or darker shades.
Primary colors mix to form secondary colors: fact.
What we are arguing, and what is up to interpretation is whether black and white by association are colors. The point I raise is that since they can not be made, using other defined colors then they are shades.
Serious question: Are you going to actually debate my point, or simply continue to reiterate it? I have offered my reasoning, several times, you have failed to once.
Initially, I wanted to be clear on your position regarding secondary colors before asking a related question:
If the result of two light waves is a color, why is the result of 3 light-waves (white) not a color?
But now that I think about it, since you reference primary colors you are more likely coming from the perspective of pigments. In that case, I assume that you believe that any mixture of the primary colors, to any degree, are colors correct?
If so, I would point out that a fully saturated combination of cyan, magenta, and yellow (the 'primary colors' for the subtractive/pigment-based color model), would produce black - only imperfections in the process prevent that from occurring in practice.
At the end of the day, semantic arguments generally just come down to the meaning of the words. There are, of course myriad definitions for color, black, shade, etc. - some where the definition of black falls into the definition of color and others where it does not. In considering the definitions, I would ask if you think the important attribute of color is the how many light waves and pigments it is comprised of, or the perception of the receiver which results in the ability to distinguish otherwise identical objects and communicate experiences to others with similar trichromatic visual processes?
I would also ask the you consider some of the liguistic implications of restricting our vocabulary.
For example, what color is this font?
Does a color tv become a tv with colors, shades, tints, tones, and hues?
If something very close to black cannot be called black, are people no longer allowed to approximate other colors - e.g. FF0000 = red, but not FE0000?
If a primary color (in the subtractive sence) is just a color which cannot be made by adding other colors, why not just consider white another primary color akin to cyan, magenta, and yellow?
If the result is light waves and not pigments then we are referring to colors on the scientific spectrum and no longer using the criteria for art. If that was your argument we could have made that clear from the start.
I agree with your point on this being a battle of semantics, it often is when it comes to open ended debates.
Spectral colors are those that can be obtained by a single wavelength. Pink is a mixture of red and white so it requires multiple wavelengths of light.
I think you would agree that the question is not an offer of proof at all. It could have been answered by saying that this font does not have any color - the intent was that in having them say that, it forced them to reconcile the semantic contortions created by completely discarding the colloquial use of the word. (Which is precisely what Physicist did...)
I think you can look at my other posts on the topic and see that I dealt with the technical aspects of the question, but at the end of the day it is semantics. (A review of your posts would seem to suggest that you concur.)
None. Like said, the electromagnetic spectrum colors' presences are absent.
"a color does not have to be on the electromagnetic spectrum to describe it or agree on what it is. Is pink a color?"
Yes it does.
In fact, we can also use Newton's prism to break white light into various wavelengths of each color. We can not measure black. We can not make black any more "black". And if we were to illuminate an area of darkness, even in the very least, it will no longer be black. It would be grey.
Just claiming that all colors that we perceive must exist in the electromagnetic spectrum doesn't make it so. People can see pink, magenta, gray, and several browns which are not produced by a single wave. That does not mean we do not perceive them as colors.
I will first use Newton's prism to break white light into various wavelengths of each color. White is measurable, pink is measurable, orange is measurable. However, black isn't. Black can not become any more "black". Also, if we illuminate a room of darkness, even in the very least, it is no longer black. It is grey.
The electromagnetic spectrum has a wide range of wavelengths, in nanometers, over each colors. Black reflects none of the colors. It simply absorbs them.
I have come to the conclusion then, that black is simply the absence of the presences of the electromagnetic spectrum colors.
You can't break white into white. White is a combination of all colors on the spectrum, it is not on the spectrum itself and is not produced by single wave. Pink is red + white and is not generated by a single-wave and is also therefore not on the electromagnetic spectrum.
It is Grey
Grey is also not present in the electromagnetic spectrum.
If we are seeing the result of multiple light waves does that make something not a color. If we are seeing the result of a reflection of several colors with some absorption, are they not colors?
The error in your reasoning is thinking that the electromagnetic spectrum represents the entire set of all colors rather than color being experienced by the perceiver.
Rather than restricting our vocabulary to not include magenta, pink, black, gray, white, etc. - we just call them non-spectral or extraspectral colors - feel free to look it up.
Feel free to try buying a suit that is the color of all of the colors in the electromagnetic spectrum plus the absence of color, but the rest of us find it a easier to just buy a gray suit...
Man, those clouds sure are mostly absent of the electromagnetic spectrum today...
Wow, that John Water's movie 'Extraluminous-reddish color Flamingos' has some parts that are hard to watch...
If a cloud was ever black, it wouldn't be that the cloud itself is absent. It's that it is black, and does not reflect any colors. Therefore, it is the absence of the presences of the electromagnetic spectrum colors. It simply absorbs them.
it is a colour because I seee it duhh. I men rally, who don t know that black is not a colour because people see it and it like other colour so it is a colour. My brain does say so, and so does my gun so if you don't like it you can ignore me,
For pigment, black is a color. Mix all the 3 primary colors (Red, yellow, and blue) using liquid paint or even food coloring. You won't get a jet black, but the point will be clear.
I am sorry. I am an artist and since this is a scientific debate I have to say no black is not a color. Black is not part of the color wheel and it is not part of refracted light. To make the color black you basically have to mix all color together. (This is not accurate just an example) how come if black is a color can you have black and white pictures. The first cameras couldn't see color but they could see black wouldn't that make it not a color. Black is and always will be a SHADE.
I hate to comment on such an old post, but this debate popped to the top for some reason and I had to comment on this:
The first cameras couldn't see color but they could see black wouldn't that make it not a color.
This is somewhat incorrect. Early cameras could 'see' all colors, but were (at the time) unable to differentiate between different wavelengths of light- only different intensities, and that due to there being less light to interact with the film medium.
The result of this was black/grey/white was simply an aesthetic choice; they could just as well have been, say, sepia-toned. Heck, they could even be something like blue/purple/red, blue/green/yellow, etc. I presume the greyscale was used so as not to inadvertently 'suggest' a color.
The visible spectrum consists of all colors. Let's say... A color. It only reflects whatever color it is. It absorbs the other colours. However, black is not in there.
Ever see any thing pink, or magenta, or gray? There are many colors not generated by a single wavelength - that does not mean we don't perceive and interpret that color and reference it by a given name.
Black is the absence of color since it absorbs all the light. No light is being reflected to your eye. We see red, because light is being reflected. But for black...no light is being reflected.
If light is considered a color...then my argument is valid. But it really boils down to opinions.
Like you can screw what everyone else says and judge color by what you see instead of something that is being reflected right back into your eye. :/
when you go in a room with all the lights turned off it is dark. that is because the light does not reflect off of it. if you get a pink piece of paper and put it over a light the whole room will become pink it is because the light is reflecting of the pink because pink is a color. just like white, if you have a blue light and white paper the room stays blue because white is not a color either. therefore black nor white is a color
For light, black is not a color. EM waves are reflected, while others are absorbed, depending. However, black objects don't reflect any. It simply absorbs them. Why isn't black in the EM spectrum? The spectrum originated from the Rainbow. The Sun radiates light. A rain droplet disperses white light into its component colors (Since it has a thin and fat end) and refracts it at an angle, with red being on the top, and violet being in the bottom. Black isn't there.
