Why 'more or less stopped using ISO'?

Started 8 months ago | Questions thread
Luke Kaven
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,253
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to crames, 8 months ago

crames wrote:

Luke Kaven wrote:

crames wrote:

Luke Kaven wrote:

The technical definitions given by engineering "standards" organizations are often instrumentally useful, and bear some relationship to the phenomena they are intended to describe.

But you have to understand that these are metaphoric uses of the words in question. A standards organization is not an authority on semantics. The subjective aspects in our judgments about "brightness" can be argued to be essential to the semantics of the term.

Sorry, not getting your point. The statement I responded to began with, "CIE states that brightness..."

In the context of the CIE it has a clear meaning describing one of the subjective aspects of color.

Clearly the word has been abused and misused here on DPR, where it has become a synonym for lightness, luminance, illuminance, ISO, etc. etc., despite a very long history of use in photography and color reproduction that agrees with the CIE definition.

Sorry to be so obscure. As a graduate student, I studied with a philosopher named Sydney Shoemaker, a noted "ordinary language philosopher" who uses "conceptual analysis" (derives from Wittgenstein's later work) as a way to understand the semantics of ordinary language terms both in their ordinary and scientific uses. In ordinary language philosophy, the commonsense meanings are argued to be primal. So-called "technical definitions" are held as suspect.

The short of it: A term like "brightness" is an ordinary language term, and refers to whatever our ordinary uses of the term refer to. If we need a scientifically respectable account of a literal meaning, we have to begin here, and preserve the referent.

In instances where an ordinary language term has been employed as a technical term, one often finds that the term has been divorced from its referent, and thereby from its meaning.

Not that you are being obscure, but Jackdan asked about brightness in the context of photometry and measurements, Iliah and I responded with CIE definitions. The context of the discussion had nothing to do with "ordinary meanings" of the term brightness. So to me your comments didn't seem to follow what was being discussed.

If you want to talk about brightness in terms of ordinary language, that's fine with me. What would you say is the ordinary meaning of brightness, and how does that ordinary meaning differ from the CIE definition? Has the referent ordinary meaning not been preserved in the CIE definition? Is it ok to mix and match ordinary meanings of terms with their technical meanings in the context of a "technical" discussion?

I'm on the road until very late tonight, so won't be able to supply a detailed answer today.  But Iliah is going in the right direction.  That being said, we all have something to add to the discussion.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow