4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + + + +
→Rainbow = circle?
:: "it has difficulty explaining why they seem beautiful and evoke such feelings of awe and mystery." ... has science ever tried to explain this? It comes off like a cheap dig.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: "it has difficulty explaining why they seem beautiful and evoke such feelings of awe and mystery." ... has science ever tried to explain this? It comes off like a cheap dig.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::: How would you like to phrase it? I was trying for some compromise between various possibilities. I didn't like statement in the original article that "although modern science has attempted to explain rainbows as reflection of light off of water in the air, they have never been able to explain why they appear AFTER a storm ... or why you can never find the end of the rainbow." Modern science explains all that quite well. I didn't just want to blow it away, so I was going to say something along the lines of science not being able to explain why rainbows are beautiful and awe-inspiring. I couldn't quite bring myself to write "cannot explain" because a supporter of evolution might be able to devise an explanation of why there is adaptive value in the perception of beauty in rainbows.
::: But if you or anyone else wants to change that to "cannot explain" that's fine with me.
::: Or if we just want to say rainbows '''are''' beautiful and awe-inspiring that's also fine, and if anyone want to slap a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag on it there shouldn't be much of a problem finding a source citation... like... hmmmm.... yeah, of course: Wordsworth, "My heart leaps up when I behold/A rainbow in the sky:/So was it when my life began;/So is it now I am a man;/So be it when I shall grow old, Or let me die!" I'll try making that change and see what people think. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)