[varunsain]

An interesting article but with no real conclusion.. How would you really prove it at the end of the day?

Read here - Skeptico - How do you prove photography to a blind man?

[anupmathur]

An interesting article but with no real conclusion..

Varun, that's not an 'article'; it's Philosophy!
If you want to drive yourself bananas, read some classical philosophy!

[Yogesh Sarkar]

Haven’t gone through the article; however all I can say is that you can’t prove/explain a photograph, because it is a form visual communication and it would be quite similar to explaining the smell of roses to a person who can’t smell.

[varunsain]

Varun, that's not an 'article'; it's Philosophy!
If you want to drive yourself bananas, read some classical philosophy!

Well yeah, that's what I meant!! But for me everything written just somehow becomes an article..

Classical philosophy? I have taken you seriously on 'Medium is the message'..

@Yogesh: (sorry I am still bad at double quoting!) I wouldn't say that one can't absolutely prove photography to a blind man.. There is a way but we just don't know it.. like taste for example.. if you block your nose and have a bite of something.. surprisingly you will not be able to taste the object/food.. So if a person has a 'failed' nose.. he would not be able to taste anything..?? But that does not mean that his taste buds have disappeared right?

Its important to note that what we see is just an image created in itself by the brain.. If you have a camera with the film present.. but without the right lens or any lens at all.. would you still be able to click a picture?

Yes.. Just the method of clicking the picture would be extremely different.. unconventional sort of.. and yea obviously with the picture being all messed up..

In short.. a new method has to be developed.. and if you do.. then you really have hit the jackpot!

[wanderlustsoul]

This seems interesting to ponder on. Has anyone been able to get this one 'right'?

[varunsain]

It is one article_Philosophy where the comments are more interesting than the topic itself..

IMO the right conclusion that I feel would be the same as proving anything else that is available to us.. to someone who does not have it or seen it.. It touches one of the most important quote "seeing is believing"..

To a blind man.. many of the objects that we use on a daily basis would be impossible to prove.. computer.. cd.. remote.. etc. etc. What this topic really is discussing about psychic beliefs of people.. Photography is just the catchy term!

If you were asked to close your eyes and were given a piece which felt like chocolate.. smelt like chocolate.. and melted like chocolate.. Would you still dare to eat it without seeing what it really is? Just depends on who is giving you that piece..

Same way.. the easiest and by far the only way to prove photography to a blind man would be to get his mother to say it in his ears..!! oh tears :'( lol

[wanderlustsoul]

So it all comes down to 'who' and not 'how'...
So true - in life, we blindly (!) do listen to people we trust the most and believe what they say.
Still, a great question - yet deserves a logically great answer.

[anupmathur]

'Medium is the message'..

Interestingly, that WAS the original title of the book.
The publisher made a typo, and when Marshall McLuhan saw the proof copy, he kept quiet about this typo, thinking this went 'well' with his 'theme'!

The title is The Medium is the Massage.

[varunsain]

Interestingly, that WAS the original title of the book.
The publisher made a typo, and when Marshall McLuhan saw the proof copy, he kept quiet about this typo, thinking this went 'well' with his 'theme'!

The title is The Medium is the Massage.

Lol.. You saved me from searching for a wrong book..

Just read about the book.. states that the typo is not the only intentional act.. Many other things which would definitely come up as a surprise to some readers..!!