Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Asunto: »Funny Things
NASA shows graphs, other institutions show other graphs. Still a lot of study is needed to find out which data can be trusted and which can't. A lot of data is gathered in a non scientific way. That means that scientists were already sure about the outcome before they started research.
Sorry, but it's logical that temperature mesures are made by meteorological stations... And btw, some mesures are made from space, with radiometer for example (to mesure soil temperature).
I'd like to know what kind of institutions you mean, and where is the link or image of these other graphs?
Do you think we cannot trust the NASA? If it was some intelligence agency, I would agree. But you can't classify the NASA as such.
And I would like to see any argument from your side. You've been writing many things in your previous posts, but it was so vague, and without any reference, that none of what you told can be rated as an argument.
I'd like to know what kind of institutions you mean, and where is the link or image of these other graphs?
Do you think we cannot trust the NASA? If it was some intelligence agency, I would agree. But you can't classify the NASA as such.
And I would like to see any argument from your side. You've been writing many things in your previous posts, but it was so vague, and without any reference, that none of what you told can be rated as an argument.
Data from meteorological stations is often corrupted. They're often placed in environments which have changed dramatically after several years.
As satellite data: this is much more accurate, but I doubt whether it's possible to make accurate measurements of soil temperature. Of course this is not a big problem cause even though data may be inaccurate it still should show a trend after a couple of years however it would be very hard to correctly estimate the value of the data in this situation.
Another important question is how can you measure global average temperature and how is it currently changing? Scientists don't know. They really don't have a clue. I mean: it's easy to measure the average temperature of Amsterdam for a couple of years, but the whole world? No way!
How would you know global average temperature is increasing? Do you have to measure the temperature of seawater or do you have to measure high in the air? And how can you measure the temperature at a depth of 6000km? And when you get your data back how can you be sure you measured what you wanted to measure?
Measurements of the troposphere in the tropical zone contradict global warming. Scientists still don't agree whether Antarctica is cooling down or warming up.
Another important question is: if the world is warming up, what is its cause? A lot of people believe it solely is CO2, but CO2 can never be of a big influence. Other greenhouse gasses are combined much more important. And what is the role of the sun? Does the sun warm up or is it cooling down? And how would it affect our planet?
Other institutions may include IPCC, local meteorological institutions such as the Dutch KNMI, scientific (& literary) institutions etcetera.
Wikipedia has an extensive article on global warming. Also read the critics. As a scientist you always have to ask yourself: how can I know data can be trusted? How can I be sure the presented measurements aren't affected by human errors or bad instrumentation. Try to ask yourself the same questions when you read something about global warming. A lot of institutions which appear to be trustworthy are not, or they're data isn't scientific because of unknown errors. It happens to the best scientist.
I definitely believe that in some recent years we may have had 'global warming'. But how can we be sure it's a long period trend? I really don't know the answer and I'm definitely not going to say "global warming is true" or "global warming is false". Simply because we do not and we cannot know at this point.
What would be more relevant, in my opinion, would be to ask ourselves how we could improve the environment. In my opinion this can simply be done by neutralizing our effect on the environment. Nature is perfectly able to control the environment herself. Everything we do to influence the environment is bad for the environment as it brings the environment in unbalance. We could do this, for example, by not using any fossil energy sources anymore, but instead use nuclear, solar, hydro or wind energy (or anything I might have forgotten).
(editado)
As satellite data: this is much more accurate, but I doubt whether it's possible to make accurate measurements of soil temperature. Of course this is not a big problem cause even though data may be inaccurate it still should show a trend after a couple of years however it would be very hard to correctly estimate the value of the data in this situation.
Another important question is how can you measure global average temperature and how is it currently changing? Scientists don't know. They really don't have a clue. I mean: it's easy to measure the average temperature of Amsterdam for a couple of years, but the whole world? No way!
How would you know global average temperature is increasing? Do you have to measure the temperature of seawater or do you have to measure high in the air? And how can you measure the temperature at a depth of 6000km? And when you get your data back how can you be sure you measured what you wanted to measure?
Measurements of the troposphere in the tropical zone contradict global warming. Scientists still don't agree whether Antarctica is cooling down or warming up.
Another important question is: if the world is warming up, what is its cause? A lot of people believe it solely is CO2, but CO2 can never be of a big influence. Other greenhouse gasses are combined much more important. And what is the role of the sun? Does the sun warm up or is it cooling down? And how would it affect our planet?
Other institutions may include IPCC, local meteorological institutions such as the Dutch KNMI, scientific (& literary) institutions etcetera.
Wikipedia has an extensive article on global warming. Also read the critics. As a scientist you always have to ask yourself: how can I know data can be trusted? How can I be sure the presented measurements aren't affected by human errors or bad instrumentation. Try to ask yourself the same questions when you read something about global warming. A lot of institutions which appear to be trustworthy are not, or they're data isn't scientific because of unknown errors. It happens to the best scientist.
I definitely believe that in some recent years we may have had 'global warming'. But how can we be sure it's a long period trend? I really don't know the answer and I'm definitely not going to say "global warming is true" or "global warming is false". Simply because we do not and we cannot know at this point.
What would be more relevant, in my opinion, would be to ask ourselves how we could improve the environment. In my opinion this can simply be done by neutralizing our effect on the environment. Nature is perfectly able to control the environment herself. Everything we do to influence the environment is bad for the environment as it brings the environment in unbalance. We could do this, for example, by not using any fossil energy sources anymore, but instead use nuclear, solar, hydro or wind energy (or anything I might have forgotten).
(editado)
eeh, I was missing your posts :)
welcome back :]
welcome back :]
Data from meteorological stations is often corrupted. They're often placed in environments which have changed dramatically after several years.
That's a point, but I would rather say that meteorological can be corrupted (as you haven't checked every station by yourself).
Another important question is how can you measure global average temperature and how is it currently changing? Scientists don't know. They really don't have a clue. I mean: it's easy to measure the average temperature of Amsterdam for a couple of years, but the whole world? No way!
The raise or drop of the average temperature in a place is a good indicator. Remember that a lower average temperatur in a region doesn't imply, that the global warming theory is nonsense. It's necessary to evaluate all the measures.
Measurements of the troposphere in the tropical zone contradict global warming. Scientists still don't agree whether Antarctica is cooling down or warming up.
Measures from meteorological station are actually from the troposphere :P
It's the lowest layer of the atmosphere.
Antartica is a special case, as there is no vegetation there, and only few life. It's a huge glacier.
Another important question is: if the world is warming up, what is its cause? A lot of people believe it solely is CO2, but CO2 can never be of a big influence. Other greenhouse gasses are combined much more important. And what is the role of the sun? Does the sun warm up or is it cooling down? And how would it affect our planet?
That's partly true, methan gas contributes 16 times more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, water in gas-form also contributes to the greenhouse effect, and I suppose there are even more.
But we actually do free more CO2 (stored by plants) than methan gas.
I agree that it's difficult to know, if you can trust the NASA for example. imo the fact, that an american organization like the NASA stated the opposite than the Bush government, rather makes me believe, you can trust those informations. But that's just my humble opinion.
We begin to see the consequences, glaciers are getting smaller all over the world (I don't mean all), the banquise around groenland is getting smaller year after year, orcans in the atlantic are more often...
What would explain all those phenomens?
That's a point, but I would rather say that meteorological can be corrupted (as you haven't checked every station by yourself).
Another important question is how can you measure global average temperature and how is it currently changing? Scientists don't know. They really don't have a clue. I mean: it's easy to measure the average temperature of Amsterdam for a couple of years, but the whole world? No way!
The raise or drop of the average temperature in a place is a good indicator. Remember that a lower average temperatur in a region doesn't imply, that the global warming theory is nonsense. It's necessary to evaluate all the measures.
Measurements of the troposphere in the tropical zone contradict global warming. Scientists still don't agree whether Antarctica is cooling down or warming up.
Measures from meteorological station are actually from the troposphere :P
It's the lowest layer of the atmosphere.
Antartica is a special case, as there is no vegetation there, and only few life. It's a huge glacier.
Another important question is: if the world is warming up, what is its cause? A lot of people believe it solely is CO2, but CO2 can never be of a big influence. Other greenhouse gasses are combined much more important. And what is the role of the sun? Does the sun warm up or is it cooling down? And how would it affect our planet?
That's partly true, methan gas contributes 16 times more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, water in gas-form also contributes to the greenhouse effect, and I suppose there are even more.
But we actually do free more CO2 (stored by plants) than methan gas.
I agree that it's difficult to know, if you can trust the NASA for example. imo the fact, that an american organization like the NASA stated the opposite than the Bush government, rather makes me believe, you can trust those informations. But that's just my humble opinion.
We begin to see the consequences, glaciers are getting smaller all over the world (I don't mean all), the banquise around groenland is getting smaller year after year, orcans in the atlantic are more often...
What would explain all those phenomens?
"That's a point, but I would rather say that meteorological can be corrupted (as you haven't checked every station by yourself)."
Basically that's what I say, so we agree on this.
"The raise or drop of the average temperature in a place is a good indicator. Remember that a lower average temperatur in a region doesn't imply, that the global warming theory is nonsense. It's necessary to evaluate all the measures."
Of course, but that's not the point I was trying to make. My point was that it's very difficult to measure global average temperature.
"Measures from meteorological station are actually from the troposphere :P
It's the lowest layer of the atmosphere.
Antartica is a special case, as there is no vegetation there, and only few life. It's a huge glacier."
I'm talking about the tropical zone. Central Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. I'm not saying that the data is incorrect because of whatever, but that, possibly correct, data doesn't support the claim of global warming.
Regarding Antarctica: now matter how special Antarctica is, it is important to know what happens with the average temperature over there. It's essential to what happens there if you want to know whether global warming exists and what the effect of global warming would be, considering its huge amount of land ice/water.
"I agree that it's difficult to know, if you can trust the NASA for example. imo the fact, that an american organization like the NASA stated the opposite than the Bush government, rather makes me believe, you can trust those informations. But that's just my humble opinion."
I don't agree with everyone who disagrees with Bush. In my opinion it's not a matter of who tries to manipulate public opinion, but who's right.
"We begin to see the consequences, glaciers are getting smaller all over the world (I don't mean all), the banquise around groenland is getting smaller year after year, orcans in the atlantic are more often..."
This is actually pretty interesting as it is definitely true that ice in the north is disappearing at a pretty fast rate, but the ice cap of Antarctica is growing. Who's right? We can't know for sure.
Basically that's what I say, so we agree on this.
"The raise or drop of the average temperature in a place is a good indicator. Remember that a lower average temperatur in a region doesn't imply, that the global warming theory is nonsense. It's necessary to evaluate all the measures."
Of course, but that's not the point I was trying to make. My point was that it's very difficult to measure global average temperature.
"Measures from meteorological station are actually from the troposphere :P
It's the lowest layer of the atmosphere.
Antartica is a special case, as there is no vegetation there, and only few life. It's a huge glacier."
I'm talking about the tropical zone. Central Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. I'm not saying that the data is incorrect because of whatever, but that, possibly correct, data doesn't support the claim of global warming.
Regarding Antarctica: now matter how special Antarctica is, it is important to know what happens with the average temperature over there. It's essential to what happens there if you want to know whether global warming exists and what the effect of global warming would be, considering its huge amount of land ice/water.
"I agree that it's difficult to know, if you can trust the NASA for example. imo the fact, that an american organization like the NASA stated the opposite than the Bush government, rather makes me believe, you can trust those informations. But that's just my humble opinion."
I don't agree with everyone who disagrees with Bush. In my opinion it's not a matter of who tries to manipulate public opinion, but who's right.
"We begin to see the consequences, glaciers are getting smaller all over the world (I don't mean all), the banquise around groenland is getting smaller year after year, orcans in the atlantic are more often..."
This is actually pretty interesting as it is definitely true that ice in the north is disappearing at a pretty fast rate, but the ice cap of Antarctica is growing. Who's right? We can't know for sure.
Yeah. This is an interesting discussion, but please, please open a new topic. The discussion deserves it and the funny things thread deserves it - thanks! :-)
Humour
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that Theories of humor be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
"Hilarity" redirects here. For the U.S. Navy ship, see USS Hilarity (AM-241).
For other uses, see Humour (disambiguation).
Look up humour or humor in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Humour or humor (see American and British English spelling differences) is the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement. Many theories exist about what humour is and what social function it serves. People of all ages and cultures respond to humour. The majority of people are able to be amused, to laugh or smile at something funny, and thus they are considered to have a "sense of humour."
The term derives from the humoral medicine of the ancient Greeks, which stated that a mix of fluids known as humours (Greek: χυμός, chymos, literally juice or sap; metaphorically, flavour) controlled human health and emotion. (This theory has since been found to be counterfactual.)[citation needed]
A sense of humour is the ability to experience humour, although the extent to which an individual will find something humorous depends on a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence, and context. For example, young children may possibly favour slapstick, such as Punch and Judy puppet shows or cartoons (e.g., Tom and Jerry). Satire may rely more on understanding the target of the humour, and thus tends to appeal to more mature audiences. Nonsatirical humour can be specifically termed "recreational drollery."[1][2]
Smiling can imply a sense of humour and a state of amusement, as in this painting by Eduard von Grützner.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Understanding humour
o 1.1 Evolution of humour
* 2 Humour formulae
* 3 See also
* 4 References
* 5 Further reading
* 6 External links
[edit] Understanding humour
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (January 2008)
Arthur Schopenhauer lamented the misuse of the term "humour" (a German loanword from English) to mean any type of comedy. However, both "humour" and "comic" are often used when theorizing about the subject. The connotation of "humour" is more that of response, while "comic" refers more to stimulus. "Humour" also originally had a connotation of a combined ridiculousness and wit in one individual, the paradigm case being Shakespeare's Sir John Falstaff. The French were slow to adopt the term "humour," and in French, "humeur" and "humour" are still two different words, the former still referring only to the archaic concept of humours.
Western humour theory begins with Plato, who attributed to Socrates (as a semihistorical dialogue character) in the Philebus (p. 49b) the view that the essence of the ridiculous is an ignorance in the weak, who are thus unable to retaliate when ridiculed. Later, in Greek philosophy, Aristotle, in the Poetics (1449a, pp. 34–35), suggested that an ugliness that does not disgust is fundamental to humour.
In ancient Sanskrit drama, Bharata Muni's Natya Shastra defined humour (hāsyam) as one of the eight nava rasas, or principle rasas (emotional responses), which can be inspired in the audience by bhavas, the imitations of emotions that the actors perform. Each rasa was associated with a specific bhavas portrayed on stage. In the case of humour, it was associated with mirth (hasya).
The terms "comedy" and "satire" became synonymous after Aristotle's Poetics was translated into Arabic in the medieval Islamic world, where it was elaborated upon by Arabic writers and Islamic philosophers such as Abu Bischr, his pupil Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes. Due to cultural differences, they disassociated comedy from Greek dramatic representation, and instead identified it with Arabic poetic themes and forms, such as hija (satirical poetry). They viewed comedy as simply the "art of reprehension" and made no reference to light and cheerful events or troublous beginnings and happy endings associated with classical Greek comedy. After the Latin translations of the 12th century, the term "comedy" thus gained a new semantic meaning in Medieval literature.[3]
The Incongruity Theory originated mostly with Kant, who claimed that the comic is an expectation that comes to nothing. Henri Bergson attempted to perfect incongruity by reducing it to the "living" and "mechanical."[4]
An incongruity like Bergson's, in things juxtaposed simultaneously, is still in vogue. This is often debated against theories of the shifts in perspectives in humour; hence, the debate in the series Humor Research between John Morreall and Robert Latta.[5] Morreall presented mostly simultaneous juxtapositions,[6] with Latta countering that it requires a "cognitive shift" created by a discovery or solution to a puzzle or problem. Latta is criticized for having reduced jokes' essence to their own puzzling aspect.
Humour frequently contains an unexpected, often sudden, shift in perspective, which gets assimilated by the Incongruity Theory. This view has been defended by Latta (1998) and by Brian Boyd (2004).[7] Boyd views the shift as from seriousness to play. Nearly anything can be the object of this perspective twist; it is, however, in the areas of human creativity (science and art being the varieties) that the shift results from "structure mapping" (termed "bisociation" by Koestler) to create novel meanings.[8] Arthur Koestler argues that humour results when two different frames of reference are set up and a collision is engineered between them.
Tony Veal, who is taking a more formalised computational approach than Koestler did, has written on the role of metaphor and metonymy in humour,[9][10][11] using inspiration from Koestler as well as from Dedre Gentner's theory of structure-mapping, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's theory of conceptual metaphor, and Mark Turner and Gilles Fauconnier's theory of conceptual blending.
Some claim that humour cannot or should not be explained. Author E.B. White once said, "Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind." [4]
[edit] Evolution of humour
As with any form of art, the same goes for humour: acceptance depends on social demographics and varies from person to person. Throughout history, comedy has been used as a form of entertainment all over the world, whether in the courts of the Western kings or the villages of the Far East. Both a social etiquette and a certain intelligence can be displayed through forms of wit and sarcasm. Eighteenth-century German author Georg Lichtenberg said that "the more you know humour, the more you become demanding in fineness."
Alastair Clarke explains: "The theory is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how and why any individual finds anything funny. Effectively, it explains that humour occurs when the brain recognizes a pattern that surprises it, and that recognition of this sort is rewarded with the experience of the humorous response, an element of which is broadcast as laughter." The theory further identifies the importance of pattern recognition in human evolution: "An ability to recognize patterns instantly and unconsciously has proved a fundamental weapon in the cognitive arsenal of human beings. The humorous reward has encouraged the development of such faculties, leading to the unique perceptual and intellectual abilities of our species."[5]
[edit] Humour formulae
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2006)
A comic that derives its humour by a character behaving in an unusual way
Humour can be verbal, visual, or physical.
Root components:
* appealing to feelings or to emotions.
* similar to reality, but not real.
* some surprise/misdirection, contradiction, ambiguity, or paradox.
Methods:
* hyperbole
* metaphor
* reductio ad absurdum or farce
* reframing
* timing
Rowan Atkinson explains in his lecture in the documentary "Funny Business"[12] that an object or a person can become funny in three different ways. They are:
* By behaving in an unusual way
* By being in an unusual place
* By being the wrong size
Most sight gags fit into one or more of these categories.
Humour is also sometimes described as an ingredient in spiritual life. Humour is also the act of being funny. Some synonyms of funny or humour are hilarious, knee-slapping, spiritual, wise-minded, outgoing, and amusing. Some Masters have added it to their teachings in various forms. A famous figure in spiritual humour is the laughing Buddha.
[edit] See also
* Clowns
* Comedy and Comedians
* Comedy and humour by nationality
* Comics
* Computational humour
* Gelotology
* Humour research
* Internet humour
* Joke
* Laughter
* List of publications in humour research
* Mark Twain Prize for American Humor
* Satire
o Political satire
* Smile
* Theory of humour
THANK YOU
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that Theories of humor be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
"Hilarity" redirects here. For the U.S. Navy ship, see USS Hilarity (AM-241).
For other uses, see Humour (disambiguation).
Look up humour or humor in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Humour or humor (see American and British English spelling differences) is the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement. Many theories exist about what humour is and what social function it serves. People of all ages and cultures respond to humour. The majority of people are able to be amused, to laugh or smile at something funny, and thus they are considered to have a "sense of humour."
The term derives from the humoral medicine of the ancient Greeks, which stated that a mix of fluids known as humours (Greek: χυμός, chymos, literally juice or sap; metaphorically, flavour) controlled human health and emotion. (This theory has since been found to be counterfactual.)[citation needed]
A sense of humour is the ability to experience humour, although the extent to which an individual will find something humorous depends on a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence, and context. For example, young children may possibly favour slapstick, such as Punch and Judy puppet shows or cartoons (e.g., Tom and Jerry). Satire may rely more on understanding the target of the humour, and thus tends to appeal to more mature audiences. Nonsatirical humour can be specifically termed "recreational drollery."[1][2]
Smiling can imply a sense of humour and a state of amusement, as in this painting by Eduard von Grützner.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Understanding humour
o 1.1 Evolution of humour
* 2 Humour formulae
* 3 See also
* 4 References
* 5 Further reading
* 6 External links
[edit] Understanding humour
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (January 2008)
Arthur Schopenhauer lamented the misuse of the term "humour" (a German loanword from English) to mean any type of comedy. However, both "humour" and "comic" are often used when theorizing about the subject. The connotation of "humour" is more that of response, while "comic" refers more to stimulus. "Humour" also originally had a connotation of a combined ridiculousness and wit in one individual, the paradigm case being Shakespeare's Sir John Falstaff. The French were slow to adopt the term "humour," and in French, "humeur" and "humour" are still two different words, the former still referring only to the archaic concept of humours.
Western humour theory begins with Plato, who attributed to Socrates (as a semihistorical dialogue character) in the Philebus (p. 49b) the view that the essence of the ridiculous is an ignorance in the weak, who are thus unable to retaliate when ridiculed. Later, in Greek philosophy, Aristotle, in the Poetics (1449a, pp. 34–35), suggested that an ugliness that does not disgust is fundamental to humour.
In ancient Sanskrit drama, Bharata Muni's Natya Shastra defined humour (hāsyam) as one of the eight nava rasas, or principle rasas (emotional responses), which can be inspired in the audience by bhavas, the imitations of emotions that the actors perform. Each rasa was associated with a specific bhavas portrayed on stage. In the case of humour, it was associated with mirth (hasya).
The terms "comedy" and "satire" became synonymous after Aristotle's Poetics was translated into Arabic in the medieval Islamic world, where it was elaborated upon by Arabic writers and Islamic philosophers such as Abu Bischr, his pupil Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes. Due to cultural differences, they disassociated comedy from Greek dramatic representation, and instead identified it with Arabic poetic themes and forms, such as hija (satirical poetry). They viewed comedy as simply the "art of reprehension" and made no reference to light and cheerful events or troublous beginnings and happy endings associated with classical Greek comedy. After the Latin translations of the 12th century, the term "comedy" thus gained a new semantic meaning in Medieval literature.[3]
The Incongruity Theory originated mostly with Kant, who claimed that the comic is an expectation that comes to nothing. Henri Bergson attempted to perfect incongruity by reducing it to the "living" and "mechanical."[4]
An incongruity like Bergson's, in things juxtaposed simultaneously, is still in vogue. This is often debated against theories of the shifts in perspectives in humour; hence, the debate in the series Humor Research between John Morreall and Robert Latta.[5] Morreall presented mostly simultaneous juxtapositions,[6] with Latta countering that it requires a "cognitive shift" created by a discovery or solution to a puzzle or problem. Latta is criticized for having reduced jokes' essence to their own puzzling aspect.
Humour frequently contains an unexpected, often sudden, shift in perspective, which gets assimilated by the Incongruity Theory. This view has been defended by Latta (1998) and by Brian Boyd (2004).[7] Boyd views the shift as from seriousness to play. Nearly anything can be the object of this perspective twist; it is, however, in the areas of human creativity (science and art being the varieties) that the shift results from "structure mapping" (termed "bisociation" by Koestler) to create novel meanings.[8] Arthur Koestler argues that humour results when two different frames of reference are set up and a collision is engineered between them.
Tony Veal, who is taking a more formalised computational approach than Koestler did, has written on the role of metaphor and metonymy in humour,[9][10][11] using inspiration from Koestler as well as from Dedre Gentner's theory of structure-mapping, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's theory of conceptual metaphor, and Mark Turner and Gilles Fauconnier's theory of conceptual blending.
Some claim that humour cannot or should not be explained. Author E.B. White once said, "Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind." [4]
[edit] Evolution of humour
As with any form of art, the same goes for humour: acceptance depends on social demographics and varies from person to person. Throughout history, comedy has been used as a form of entertainment all over the world, whether in the courts of the Western kings or the villages of the Far East. Both a social etiquette and a certain intelligence can be displayed through forms of wit and sarcasm. Eighteenth-century German author Georg Lichtenberg said that "the more you know humour, the more you become demanding in fineness."
Alastair Clarke explains: "The theory is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how and why any individual finds anything funny. Effectively, it explains that humour occurs when the brain recognizes a pattern that surprises it, and that recognition of this sort is rewarded with the experience of the humorous response, an element of which is broadcast as laughter." The theory further identifies the importance of pattern recognition in human evolution: "An ability to recognize patterns instantly and unconsciously has proved a fundamental weapon in the cognitive arsenal of human beings. The humorous reward has encouraged the development of such faculties, leading to the unique perceptual and intellectual abilities of our species."[5]
[edit] Humour formulae
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2006)
A comic that derives its humour by a character behaving in an unusual way
Humour can be verbal, visual, or physical.
Root components:
* appealing to feelings or to emotions.
* similar to reality, but not real.
* some surprise/misdirection, contradiction, ambiguity, or paradox.
Methods:
* hyperbole
* metaphor
* reductio ad absurdum or farce
* reframing
* timing
Rowan Atkinson explains in his lecture in the documentary "Funny Business"[12] that an object or a person can become funny in three different ways. They are:
* By behaving in an unusual way
* By being in an unusual place
* By being the wrong size
Most sight gags fit into one or more of these categories.
Humour is also sometimes described as an ingredient in spiritual life. Humour is also the act of being funny. Some synonyms of funny or humour are hilarious, knee-slapping, spiritual, wise-minded, outgoing, and amusing. Some Masters have added it to their teachings in various forms. A famous figure in spiritual humour is the laughing Buddha.
[edit] See also
* Clowns
* Comedy and Comedians
* Comedy and humour by nationality
* Comics
* Computational humour
* Gelotology
* Humour research
* Internet humour
* Joke
* Laughter
* List of publications in humour research
* Mark Twain Prize for American Humor
* Satire
o Political satire
* Smile
* Theory of humour
THANK YOU