On 2017 Feb 16, Lydia Maniatis commented:

"Our findings suggest that people who perceive the dress as blue might rely less on contextual cues when estimating surface color."

Can there be a "context-free" condition, in principle? What would this look like? The term context seems far too general as it is used here. The conclusion as framed has no theoretical content. If the reference is to specific manipulations, and the principles behind them, then it's an entirely different thing, and should be specified.

The fact that the results of this study differed significantly from the results of others should be of concern with respect to all of them. Might replication attempts be in order, or are chatty post-mortems enough?

"Our results lend direct support to the idea that blue and white perceivers see the dress in a different color because they discount different illumination colors."

This statement involves a major conceptual error in the sense that it cannot function as an explanation. The visual system infers both light and illumination from the stimulation of the retina by various wavelengths of various intensities. Both surface appearance and illumination are inferred from the same stimulation; to make an inference about illumination is to simultaneously make an inference about reflectance/chromaticity. One “explains” the other in the sense that each inference is contingent on the other; but to say that one inference has priority over the other is like saying the height of one side of a see-saw determines the height of the other; it’s an empty statement. What we need to explain is the movement of the whole, interconnected see saw.

This error is unfortunately a common one; it's also made by Witzel, Racey and O'Regan (2017) in this special issue. In short, this is a non-explanation.

On 2017 Feb 16, Lydia Maniatis commented:

"Our findings suggest that people who perceive the dress as blue might rely less on contextual cues when estimating surface color."

Can there be a "context-free" condition, in principle? What would this look like? The term context seems far too general as it is used here. The conclusion as framed has no theoretical content. If the reference is to specific manipulations, and the principles behind them, then it's an entirely different thing, and should be specified.

The fact that the results of this study differed significantly from the results of others should be of concern with respect to all of them. Might replication attempts be in order, or are chatty post-mortems enough?

"Our results lend direct support to the idea that blue and white perceivers see the dress in a different color because they discount different illumination colors."

This statement involves a major conceptual error in the sense that it cannot function as an explanation. The visual system infers both light and illumination from the stimulation of the retina by various wavelengths of various intensities. Both surface appearance and illumination are inferred from the same stimulation; to make an inference about illumination is to simultaneously make an inference about reflectance/chromaticity. One “explains” the other in the sense that each inference is contingent on the other; but to say that one inference has priority over the other is like saying the height of one side of a see-saw determines the height of the other; it’s an empty statement. What we need to explain is the movement of the whole, interconnected see saw.

This error is unfortunately a common one; it's also made by Witzel, Racey and O'Regan (2017) in this special issue. In short, this is a non-explanation.