Actually, 4000K does exist in the environment without regard to humans. Color temperature is based on the frequencies of light emitted by a black-body radiator at that named temperature. It's taken from physical laws and has nothing to do with human perception at all, instead being based on math and scientific concepts.
You've just contradicted yourself here. It has everything to do with perception. The physical phenomena still exist independently of us, yes. But, what we understand as "color" does not. The physical phenomena and the qualitative perception of it are NOT the same thing.
The particular combinations of wavelengths and intensities that have been collectively agreed upon as being "4000K" do exist, but our understanding of it, our perceptual experience that makes it qualitatively different from "4500K", etc. does not exist anywhere except in our minds.
You're running into a problem most students in the Introductory Sensory Perception class I teach run into, that our perceptual systems work transparently; that is, we're not aware of their functioning. We just "see" the world but what is really going on is we are not actually experiencing the stimulus itself but instead are experiencing the functioning of the visual system. Again, there is a substantive and significant difference between the properties of the physical stimulus and our conscious awareness of those stimuli. 150 years of research into psychophysics and perceptual neurophysiology have repeatedly proven this; it is not conjecture on my part, it is proven empirical fact. If you doubt there is a difference between our perceptions and the physical stimulus, do a simple google search for "visual illusions"; they are demonstrative proof that what we perceive DOES NOT correspond to the actual stimulus characteristics in illusory stimuli.
No human perception is involved anywhere. The name "neutral" is probably taken from sunlight, which falls very close to the definition of "neutral white" we're using. Since the sun is the most spectacular light source around, it makes sense to use it as the basis to which we compare other sources.
I'm sorry, but again you are incorrect. Our perception is involved, in fact in everything we know and understand. If there were no perception involved, how would there by any knowledge of anything?
I'm not trying to be difficult, but the basis of your claims do not stand up to logical analysis and are contrary to more than a century of the scientific findings on the phenomena of human visual perception and the functioning of the neurophysiology of the visual system.
…the only reason we're having this conversation is that calling something "neutral" creates a sticking point for those who don't actually like the color.
The reason it's a sticking point is that our perceptions of it DO vary from person to person, and which is also the reason why we've had to come up with "objective" definitions of such things. If there were no variability in the perception of it from person to person, why would such standards even exist?
Imo, what you say is exactly what I mean - the whole point is that we people can't decide on things, and thus come up with a form of measure so that there's no arguing.
Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that our perceptions do vary, and they do not always correspond to what is out there in the world.
Of course, everything is defined by us humans, but there's a difference between defining it objectively and subjectively.
The important thing to understand here, is that what constitutes "objectively" is based on subjective experience. It is a generalization or an average if you will, of what that subjective experience is from person to person.
"Objectivity" is not a position we can take, even in the sciences. Just because we put on our lab coats and all that does not mean we are being "objective". Our experiences and expectations play a significant role in all our perceptions. As I mention above, the simplest example of this is the case of illusions.
On a more complex level, our moral and ethical values, our social standards, our personal interests and likes and desires all play a role in the product of scientific research. The scientific method only shows us WHAT, it does not explain HOW. That is a matter of interpretation and is open to debate; how many scientific discoveries through history have been fought over because of differences in the interpretation of the meaning of those findings? A LOT. If there were true "objectivity" in and of itself separate from our existence and understanding, such argument would never occur; the meaning of the results would be self evident, a necessary product of scientific observation. There's the rub though; what we call "science" is a set of agreed upon procedures and assumptions, without which science would not exist. So if science is merely socially agreed upon definitions of subjective experiences, where is the objectivity? And, since science itself is based on the commonality we share with one another of our subjective experience that also means there is no necessarily determined conclusions to be drawn from scientific research, only the agreements we have about our definitions.
Our
definitions would cease to exist, but color and temperature would still exist
The physical stimuli would continue to exist; "color" and "temperature" would not.
