# "Obvious Facts" Debate thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309 "2010-02-02T00:13:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/61 "2010-02-02T20:14:11Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The definition of 2, is two 1s. No. Two is the successor of the successor of 0. [This](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_arithmetic) is not knowledge that most people have. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/62 "2010-02-02T20:18:04Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > No. Two is the successor of the successor of 0. [This](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_arithmetic) is not knowledge that most people have. No, but they have the knowledge by rote of how 2 is defined, which is 1 and an additional 1. You are insisting upon a particular way of arriving at it that is not necessary in order to point to an extremely poor example where you compared an axiom to a theory. And also, I think 0 was invented after 2. It’s just a bad example. Your person in a room argument at least makes sense logically. It’s a poor example for completely different reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/63 "2010-02-02T20:20:18Z")
> [@heavyarms553](#): > > While it is true that most cases of obesity in America are resultant from an overabundance of food, organic endocrine disorders can overwhelm all attempts at weight loss. No, all cases of obesity are a result of too many calories. Fat cannot magically appear on a body, no matter the person. Fat is stored extra calories. Ok, so you need to eat more food than calories you burn to have enough vitamins and minerals. Either eat less and take a vitamin pill or walk around the block. It is flat out untrue that it’s impossible for some people to lose weight due to their biology. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/64 "2010-02-02T20:22:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s just a bad example. Your person in a room argument at least makes sense logically. It’s a poor example for completely different reasons. What reasons are those? That we see a person with our eyes and the redshift with radio telescopes? If that’s your issue, can we then say that the existence of microorganisms is not obvious? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/65 "2010-02-02T20:23:51Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > What reasons are those? That we see a person with our eyes and the redshift with radio telescopes? Yes, pretty much. Most people know how to operate their eyes, most people do not know how to operate a radio telescope, or to interpret the data from a radio telescope. > [@](#): > > If that’s your issue, can we then say that the existence of microorganisms is not obvious? Yes. Though one can see microorganisms with a regular microscope, and that only requires generalized knowledge of how a lens works. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/66 "2010-02-02T20:29:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Then the less intellectual tools required to process the information the more obvious something is, and the more sense it makes no? I don’t think so, because I don’t think that interpersonal comparisons of obviousness are really possible. I mean, everything is obvious to you once you understand it. To someone grappling with problems at the fringes of mathematics or to a sixth grader learning to solve a quadratic equation for the first time, the solution to his/her problem is equally not obvious despite the differences in cognitive machinery required to get the job done. > [@](#): > > I never said Genesis is more obvious. You said it made more sense than the Big Bang. Did I misunderstand you? > [@](#): > > I am just making a simple point about obviousness and what makes more sense. It is NOT obvious and it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to claim that Nothing exploded and the universe came into being. Whether or not it’s true is irrelevant to whether or not it’s obvious. I think we are just going to go around and around. Is it any less obvious than “in the beginning there was the Word?” Or that light was the first thing created? How does that make sense? > [@](#): > > Futures Markets in antiuqity might be obvious after some scholar connects the dots, but until that time it is not ‘more obvious’ than alternative theories. And after it occurs, it will not be obvious to someone lacking the technical skills to understand it. As with any explanation, you have got to be able to evaluate the data. It is very easy to spin a story, say, the Bible, if you don’t actually have any data that constrain it. If you cannot evaluate what data actually do constrain your story, then sure, it will never be obvious. I think this is no different than any other endeavor, though. > [@](#): > > Clearly Genesis makes more sense to a larger number of people than BBT. They may think it makes sense, but an ape can read Nietzsche. He just doesn’t understand it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/67 "2010-02-02T20:33:27Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I don’t think so, because I don’t think that interpersonal comparisons of obviousness are really possible. I mean, everything is obvious to you once you understand it. To someone grappling with problems at the fringes of mathematics or to a sixth grader learning to solve a quadratic equation for the first time, the solution to his/her problem is equally not obvious despite the differences in cognitive machinery required to get the job done. Yes, it’s not obvious initially. One has to learn the skills. The fact of the matter is we don’t teach most people how to judge the Big Bang. > [@](#): > > You said it made more sense than the Big Bang. Did I misunderstand you? I don’t recall saying that. I remember saying that it’s ridiculous to take Genesis literally. Just now I said it makes more sense to a lot of people, irrespective of its truth. > [@](#): > > I think we are just going to go around and around. Is it any less obvious than “in the beginning there was the Word?” Or that light was the first thing created? How does that make sense? I don’t think origin of the universe theories of any particular species are obvious. > [@](#): > > As with any explanation, you have got to be able to evaluate the data. It is very easy to spin a story, say, the Bible, if you don’t actually have any data that constrain it. If you cannot evaluate what data actually do constrain your story, then sure, it will never be obvious. I think this is no different than any other endeavor, though. Right, but the obvious ridiculousness of Genesis does not make the BBT more obviously true by comparison. > [@](#): > > They may think it makes sense, but an ape can read Nietzsche. He just doesn’t understand it. An ape cannot read Nietzche. Ape’s cannot read. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/68 "2010-02-02T20:38:57Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t recall saying that. I remember saying that it’s ridiculous to take Genesis literally. Just now I said it makes more sense to a lot of people, irrespective of its truth. Ok, here is a reminder: > [@](#): > > Again, I need to remind you of what this thread is about. It is not about whether or not Big Bang Theory is correct, it’s about whether it makes more ‘sense’ than Genesis. The answer is emphatically NO. It is not obvious to the senses that Big Bang Theory is correct. If the Big Bang Theory does not make more sense than Genesis, then either it makes the same amount of sense or Genesis makes more sense. Which is it? > [@](#): > > An ape cannot read Nietzche. Ape’s cannot read. You’ve never seen A Fish Called Wanda? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/69 "2010-02-02T20:40:42Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > An ape cannot read Nietzche. Ape’s cannot read. They unlike you, _do_ have that excuse for not learning. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/70 "2010-02-02T20:43:50Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I don’t think so, because I don’t think that interpersonal comparisons of obviousness are really possible. I mean, everything is obvious to you once you understand it. To someone grappling with problems at the fringes of mathematics or to a sixth grader learning to solve a quadratic equation for the first time, the solution to his/her problem is equally not obvious despite the differences in cognitive machinery required to get the job done. Indeed. I recently attended a premiere party for an upcoming HBO documentary (sort of…it was fictionalized with actors and done as a story) on the life of Temple Grandin. Ms. Grandin is autistic. Her ability to cope and get on with life was, shall we say, difficult. Despite this she now has a PhD in Animal Husbandry (or something like that) and her designs for moving cattle are now used in 1/3 of all meat processing plants in the US and is a professor at the University of Colorado. Of note, and she mentioned this in a Q&A after the movie, was how different her perceptions are. She thinks, literally, in pictures. She mentioned that mathematics was an absolutely horrible subject for her. I don’t doubt she knows what 1+1 is but nothing about the subject was easy for her and it does not take much more complicated math to throw her off. That said her perceptions allowed her to see things in a meat processing plant differently and it was obvious, to her, how they could be improved (and she was correct). Point being what is obvious to one is not to another. 1+1 is easy but 265,483\*973,654 is considered a lot harder to do in our heads although essentially it is just as “obvious” since it derives from basic mathematical rules (and there are some people out there who can do that in their head in an instant so it is obvious to them). ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/71 "2010-02-02T20:45:14Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Ok, here is a reminder: > [@](#): > > If the Big Bang Theory does not make more sense than Genesis, then either it makes the same amount of sense or Genesis makes more sense. Which is it? The answer is that the vast majority of people lack the tools to verify either. > [@](#): > > You’ve never seen A Fish Called Wanda? Not in twenty years. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/72 "2010-02-02T20:46:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > They unlike you, _do_ have that excuse for not learning. Except that I understand the arguments being put forth by everyone. So what do you base the idea of my lack of learning on? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/73 "2010-02-02T20:47:47Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t spend my time posting about it. I spend my time posting about whether it’s so obviously ‘true’, which it isn’t. I made the same point about Evolution the other day and people had to concede that I was correct. That it’s so highly technical as to be beyond the ken of most people. It is in fact scientifically irresponsible to try and get people who are ignorant of the basic science to accept the Big Bang as fact. Nothing I’ve ever read tries to get people to accept the Big Bang blindly. The evidence for it is always set out. Ditto for evolution - many of Dawkins’ books take the arguments against it head on, and refutes them. > [@](#): > > That’s the entire point of standards of evidence, and there are whole areas of jurisprudence that have developed in order to manage such data. And as you know, it’s not perfect, we sometimes convict innocent people and let the guilty go. I’ve done peer review, and I’ve been on a jury, and peer review is far more rigorous. Neither science nor the legal system claims 100% correctness. And in science a hypothesis/theory keeps on getting tried, and has to pass each time. In science, OJ wouldn’t have caught a break. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/74 "2010-02-02T20:50:02Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The answer is that the vast majority of people lack the tools to verify either. That may well be true, but the reason why we have so many posts on this thread is because this isn’t what you actually said. > [@](#): > > Not in twenty years. Ah well. Otto argues that he isn’t as stupid as an ape because apes can’t read Nietzsche, to which his sister replies that apes can but they just can’t understand it. It might have been a monkey or a gorilla, but it doesn’t much matter. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/75 "2010-02-02T20:50:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Nothing I’ve ever read tries to get people to accept the Big Bang blindly. The evidence for it is always set out. Ditto for evolution - many of Dawkins’ books take the arguments against it head on, and refutes them. And being able to read those books requires specialized technical knowledge that most people do not possess. > [@](#): > > I’ve done peer review, and I’ve been on a jury, and peer review is far more rigorous. Neither science nor the legal system claims 100% correctness. And in science a hypothesis/theory keeps on getting tried, and has to pass each time. In science, OJ wouldn’t have caught a break. What we are arguing for here is not correctness but obviousness. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/76 "2010-02-02T20:52:50Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > That may well be true, but the reason why we have so many posts on this thread is because this isn’t what you actually said. I said it’s not more obvious. If it were more obvious then more people would accept it. No? We’ll get into a dissection of Genesis here in a minute. That’ll be fun. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/77 "2010-02-02T20:57:55Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I said it’s not more obvious. If it were more obvious then more people would accept it. No? The two are not connected. It is not obvious to me how this computer works, but I accept that it does and that there is good science behind it. It is certainly obvious to someone exactly how it works, perhaps to a lot of people. Acceptance of an idea and its obviousness are not perfectly correlated, I don’t think. People don’t accept the Big Bang Theory for a whole lot of reasons, many of which I think are not very well informed. I don’t think this has anything to do with its obviousness. As per my previous post to which **Whack-A-Mole** added interesting color, I do not think interpersonal comparison of obviousness is possible because everything becomes obvious once you understand it. > [@](#): > > We’ll get into a dissection of Genesis here in a minute. That’ll be fun. 😉 Fun like having a tooth extraction without anaesthesia is fun. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/78 "2010-02-02T20:59:50Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > The two are not connected. It is not obvious to me how this computer works, but I accept that it does and that there is good science behind it. It is certainly obvious to someone exactly how it works, perhaps to a lot of people. Acceptance of an idea and its obviousness are not perfectly correlated, I don’t think. Then there is a problem with the question posed by the OP. > [@](#): > > People don’t accept the Big Bang Theory for a whole lot of reasons, many of which I think are not very well informed. I don’t think this has anything to do with its obviousness. As per my previous post to which **Whack-A-Mole** added interesting color, I do not think interpersonal comparison of obviousness is possible because everything becomes obvious once you understand it. The reason I do not accept it is because I do not fully understand it. I do not reject it for the same reason. > [@](#): > > Fun like having a tooth extraction without anaesthesia is fun. 🙂 We can refrain if you like. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/79 "2010-02-02T21:09:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > And being able to read those books requires specialized technical knowledge that most people do not possess. What specialized technical knowledge is required to read “Climbing Mt. Improbable?” The cosmology books I’ve read don’t use equations (most of them) and are designed to be read standalone. I assume that you don’t mean ability to read and reason at a rudimentary level constitute specialized knowledge. > [@](#): > > What we are arguing for here is not correctness but obviousness. Is the earth being round obvious or not, not considering pictures from space? ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/80 "2010-02-02T21:13:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Indeed. > > I recently attended a premiere party for an upcoming HBO documentary (sort of…it was fictionalized with actors and done as a story) on the life of Temple Grandin. Ms. Grandin is autistic. Her ability to cope and get on with life was, shall we say, difficult. Despite this she now has a PhD in Animal Husbandry (or something like that) and her designs for moving cattle are now used in 1/3 of all meat processing plants in the US and is a professor at the University of Colorado. > > Of note, and she mentioned this in a Q&A after the movie, was how different her perceptions are. She thinks, literally, in pictures. She mentioned that mathematics was an absolutely horrible subject for her. I don’t doubt she knows what 1+1 is but nothing about the subject was easy for her and it does not take much more complicated math to throw her off. That said her perceptions allowed her to see things in a meat processing plant differently and it was obvious, to her, how they could be improved (and she was correct). > > Point being what is obvious to one is not to another. 1+1 is easy but 265,483\*973,654 is considered a lot harder to do in our heads although essentially it is just as “obvious” since it derives from basic mathematical rules (and there are some people out there who can do that in their head in an instant so it is obvious to them). My wife is a first grade teacher. Elementary addition is one of the subjects she teaches. She can tell stories about kids for whom 1+1=2 is far from obvious. What’s obvious to one may not be obvious to another. Obviously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309.md?page=5)