Science desk
< July 4	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 5[edit]

Organ harvesting[edit]

Over at our Falun Gong article, there is an editor who made the following claim:

"We know that this group has been subject to forced organ harvesting, which in the decision of the China Tribunal on Forced Organ Harvesting, has been taking place against a large number of member of this group for a substantial period of time."[1]

There is an (obviously unreliable) Falun Gong source that makes the same claim: [ https://faluninfo.net/forced-organ-harvesting-in-china-falun-gong/ ]

And it has made it into these Wikipedia articles:

There are some obvious problems with these claims, such as using [ http://organharvestinvestigation.net/] and The Weekly Standard as sources, but is there any credible evidence that these accusations against the Chinese government are true? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Reuters: China is harvesting organs from Falun Gong members, finds expert panel.

From The Daily Telegraph: British government 'ignored' Chinese organ harvesting, Tribunal rules.

From The Guardian: China is harvesting organs from detainees, tribunal concludes.

All of the above are quoting the China Tribunal (article needs some work), which is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC and advised by Martin Elliott (surgeon) who sound like reliable chaps. Alansplodge (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the British Medical Journal: China’s forced organ harvesting constitutes crimes against humanity, informal London tribunal finds (July 2019) and Chinese doctors admitted in undercover calls that harvested organs were available, informal tribunal finds (March 2020). Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utility monster in practice... 93.136.52.139 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that this is a case of a utility monster. The Chinese state is not justifying this practice on the grounds that favored citizens get more utility from the organs than disfavored one. Insofar as they are justifying it at all in a utilitarian sense, it is that the state gets more utility from compliant or otherwise favored citizens, than it does from ones it considers criminals. Of course, that depends on accepting the state definition of who is a criminal vs a valuable citizen. Mostly the state does not appear to justify this at all, it simply does it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hue ring[edit]

In a RGB color picker, hue can be displayed on a color ring: R, R+G, G, G+B, B, R+B. This corresponds to colors of the rainbow: red, yellow, green, aqua, blue, purple. However the transition from R+B to R is also smooth, despite connnecting the top and bottom of the visible spectrum. How come? 31.45.224.2 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is already hidden in your question: you describe purple as R+B, which is essentially how the cone cells in the human eye work; they detect optical stimuli that (roughly) correspond to red, green and blue – not the actual wavelength of the light. This is also why you can see the full rainbow on your display, even though no purple or yellow light at all actually reaches your eyes. In an actual rainbow, purple is of course not created additively, it is the real thing. Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 18:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that means that our RGB screens and CMYK printouts don't really resemble reality to other lifeforms. Interesting, seems that we've adapted to perceive a linear combination of R and G or G and B as interim colors on the spectrum, but R and B without green in-between produce a sort of impossible color... 95.168.120.46 (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's even worse than that. How do you define real colors without reference to the observer? How can I know that your brain processes the stimulus of a particular color of light the same way mine does? We could both state that something was red but still be experiencing red differently.--Khajidha (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: see Qualia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many people in my experience seem ok with the idea that "some people experience cilantro tasting like soap" but have trouble believing "some people see red as grey". Rmhermen (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]