# "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:** 5
**Author:** ![The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bith_Shuffle)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/81 "2010-02-02T21:17:09Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > 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. Are you speaking quite literally here? Are you saying that there are 1st graders who literally (_literally_) do not consider it obvious that 1 + 1 = 2? That seems to me like a kid not understanding that a bottle is not empty if it is full. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/82 "2010-02-02T21:19:06Z")
[Russell’s and Whitehead’s _Principia Mathematica_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_mathematica), one of the seminal works in the discipline: > [@](#): > > From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." – Volume I, 1st edition, page 379 (page 362 in 2nd edition; page 360 in abridged version). > > The proof is actually completed in \*110.643 (Volume II, 1st edition, page 86), accompanied by the comment, “The above proposition is occasionally useful.” ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/83 "2010-02-02T21:42:29Z")
People, on the subject of the Big Bang **mswas** is a conspiracy theorist. Read his [first](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12064851&postcount=2) [two](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12064893&postcount=5) posts in this thread. Highlights: “So you’re saying that the Big Bang Theory has more Truthiness than Genesis?” "The book of Genesis was an allegory written by stone-age people FOR stone-age people. The Big Bang theory was a theory written by space-age people FOR space-age people, and has the advantage of being logically elegant while being pretty much unverifiable. " “I don’t believe in the ‘facts’ of the Big Bang anymore than I believe in the ‘facts’ of Genesis. Both essentially relate a great explosion of light creating all matter in the universe.” Naw, he’s not trying to say that the two theories are equally credible at _all_ :rolleyes:. There’s skepticism, and there’s Just Asking Questions. The difference is when you’re a skeptic, you ask questions and _listen to the answers_. **mswas** is just asking. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/84 "2010-02-02T22:08:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **MEBuckner** What I find incredulous is that we know what occurred before the ‘First Stars at 400m years’ mark on this map: [http://bccp.lbl.gov/Images/wmap.gif](http://bccp.lbl.gov/Images/wmap.gif) But we can _directly observe_ what happened earlier than that, like 99.9% of the time back towards the beginning. We can directly observe what was happening only 400,000 years after it started. And our physics models what happened earlier that that even. All that stuff _is_ the Big Bang, even if we have no idea what led to its all starting. Really, it is just like observing someone walking out of a room and deducing that he was in the room previously. > [@mswas](#): > > An ape cannot read Nietzche. Ape’s cannot read. Some of us can. ---
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/85 "2010-02-02T22:16:27Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Except that I understand the arguments being put forth by everyone. So what do you base the idea of my lack of learning on? Deliberate ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![heavyarms553](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/779978/32.png) [@heavyarms553](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heavyarms553)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/86 "2010-02-02T22:22:23Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. I find your lack of compassion for those afflicted with a lifetime struggle against obesity to be disturbing. Also your lack of faith. Ha. You clearly have never met anyone who have take every reasonable measure to lose weight and still have failed time and time again. Claiming that an obese person’s weight is merely a sign that they are weak or uncommitted is senseless cruelty. You don’t really seem to understand. Things as primitive and as taken for granted as the DESIRE to eat are completely under the control of biochemical reactions going on inside your body. These people are fighting an uphill battle, and belittling them with unsympathetic rationales like that will only bring depression, frustration, and self hate. Yes, you are technically correct. If we took everyone who suffered from obesity, and threw them into a room with a month’s supply of vitamin pills (mind you, not all essential nutrients can be obtained from pills alone, at least not multivitamins as sold OTC. In addition, some nonessential nutrients become essential under starvation conditions) and locked the door, they would lose weight. No matter what is wrong with their metabolism, they are still subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. However, doing so would be unambiguously cruel. I’m speaking about matters as they exist in the real world. You can’t do something like that, and to suggest otherwise is… not cool. I’m not claiming that people who are obese should be content with themselves as they are. Quite to the contrary, I believe they should try as hard as they can to lose weight. All I am saying is that the rest of society should not look down upon them because of their plight, and that they should know that breaking the cycle of obesity is like breaking any other addiction. Failure, and renewed enthusiasm are normal parts of the process. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/87 "2010-02-02T22:30:15Z")
I guess I am still puzzled where “obvious” comes into it at all. A truth is not necessarily obvious…at all. Relativity seems pretty near truth as a theory can get and it was not at all obvious. Hell, Newton’s Laws were not obvious to the world for most of its existence. Now, someone comes along and wants you to calculate artillery trajectories. According to **mswas** it seems since Newton’s Laws are not obvious we cannot assess their truth. Sure some propeller headed geek scientist might be arsed to look in to it but for the rest of us who cares? It has as much validity as the Bible because it is no more obvious than the Bible. I believe the normal state of affairs when presented with a new idea is to do one of the following: 1. Just accept that people looked at the issue and as long as they seem to have a broad consensus just take them at their word. 2. Accept that others have done the hard work in good faith (setting up the experiment, recording data, etc.) and read up on what is being said and try to understand it yourself at least from a layman’s perspective. 3. Go do the hard work yourself. Learn the minutiae of the field and do your own experiments and write papers for peer review. Not seeing where “obvious” fits in there. Most things we learn are not obvious. Bridges, buildings, cars, computers and so on are not obvious. If they were people would have built them a long time ago. Not even all of math is obvious (the number zero was not “invented” till the 9th century as a mathematical concept). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/88 "2010-02-02T22:46:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I guess I am still puzzled where “obvious” comes into it at all. > > A truth is not necessarily obvious…at all. Relativity seems pretty near truth as a theory can get and it was not at all obvious. Hell, Newton’s Laws were not obvious to the world for most of its existence. > > Now, someone comes along and wants you to calculate artillery trajectories. According to **mswas** it seems since Newton’s Laws are not obvious we cannot assess their truth. Sure some propeller headed geek scientist might be arsed to look in to it but for the rest of us who cares? It has as much validity as the Bible because it is no more obvious than the Bible. > > I believe the normal state of affairs when presented with a new idea is to do one of the following: > > 1. Just accept that people looked at the issue and as long as they seem to have a broad consensus just take them at their word. > > 2. Accept that others have done the hard work in good faith (setting up the experiment, recording data, etc.) and read up on what is being said and try to understand it yourself at least from a layman’s perspective. > > 3. Go do the hard work yourself. Learn the minutiae of the field and do your own experiments and write papers for peer review. > > Not seeing where “obvious” fits in there. Most things we learn are not obvious. Bridges, buildings, cars, computers and so on are not obvious. If they were people would have built them a long time ago. Not even all of math is obvious (the number zero was not “invented” till the 9th century as a mathematical concept). You forgot 4) Decide that the new idea is wrong, by gum, and none of your pesky facts and evidence will sway me! But you’re right that “obvious” is not a good way to describe what the OP is looking for. At best, “obvious” means “follows naturally and easily from the given facts”. And has been noted, things get a _lot_ more obvious once you’ve gone through the effort and/or been subjected to the education to teach you how to deduce that result from those facts! To be frank, evolution and the big bang are not “obvious”, and the latter is less obvious than the former. And while divine creation of the world and animals and stuff is obviously a mere myth, that’s a lot less obvious when your head has been pumped full of fairy stories, interfering with your logic. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/89 "2010-02-03T00:24:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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. Being able to actually prove that those arguments are true requires specialized knowledge that most of the readers of that book probably do not possess. And if you have to read a big tome most people have never heard of then it is NOT obvious. > [@](#): > > Is the earth being round obvious or not, not considering pictures from space? I cannot unconsider pictures from space, it’s a pointless exercise. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/90 "2010-02-03T00:30:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Deliberate ignorance. What deliberate ignorance are you referring to? Do you think I don’t read people’s explanation of the Big Bang as I am reading this? Do you think I cannot understand the arguments people are putting forward? Not knowing a bit of useless science trivia that has no bearing on practical every day existence somehow reflect poorly on the choice of things I have elected to study? I am certain that I know things that you don’t know. Does that make you ignorant because you know different things that I don’t know? Or are you just trying to make your contributions to the thread as void of content as the theories of what happened before the Big Bang? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/91 "2010-02-03T00:31:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I guess I am still puzzled where “obvious” comes into it at all. It’s in the thread title. I am saying the Big Bang is not obvious, in answer to the OP. No, a truth is not necessarily obvious. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/92 "2010-02-03T01:01:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Is the earth being round obvious or not, not considering pictures from space? The earth is a dinner plate, everybody knows that it only looks round if you look at it from directly above. Also the pictures were photoshopped. In the sixties. ---
**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 3, 2010, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/93 "2010-02-03T01:36:21Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The earth is a dinner plate, everybody knows that it only looks round if you look at it from directly above. > > Also the pictures were photoshopped. In the sixties. Or as we say in the Flat Earth Society “There’s nothing to sphere but sphere itself.” ---
**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 3, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/94 "2010-02-03T02:07:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Being able to actually prove that those arguments are true requires specialized knowledge that most of the readers of that book probably do not possess. And if you have to read a big tome most people have never heard of then it is NOT obvious. Obviousness does not imply you can or have proven something - otherwise nothing would be obvious to most people. And obvious things might be very difficult to prove. it is obvious that light moves in a straight line (ignoring gravitational lensing) - understanding why this is so took Feynman years. Do you think the earth being round was obvious to someone who lived before pictures from space? How about someone who didn’t live near a port and never saw the evidence of a mast appearing before the rest of a ship? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/95 "2010-02-03T02:51:29Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The definition of 2, is two 1s. Ah, you mean 11. ---
**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 3, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/96 "2010-02-03T03:21:14Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What deliberate ignorance are you referring to? Do you think I don’t read people’s explanation of the Big Bang as I am reading this? Do you think I cannot understand the arguments people are putting forward? Not knowing a bit of useless science trivia that has no bearing on practical every day existence somehow reflect poorly on the choice of things I have elected to study? I am certain that I know things that you don’t know. Does that make you ignorant because you know different things that I don’t know? > > Or are you just trying to make your contributions to the thread as void of content as the theories of what happened before the Big Bang? I think that you avoid trying to find out the answers concerning the Big Bang, and that when the means to find these answers are handed to you on a silver platter, you refuse to expend any effort _because you might learn something you have already determined you don’t want to learn_. This is the deliberate ignorance I speak of-you _could_ increase your knowledge base, but you _refuse_ to do so. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/97 "2010-02-03T03:25:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Or as we say in the Flat Earth Society > > “There’s nothing to sphere but sphere itself.” As a big Terry Pratchett fan, I can state that the world is, sadly, an oblate spheroid. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/98 "2010-02-03T03:29:50Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Ah, you mean 11. As in three? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/99 "2010-02-03T03:33:23Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > As in three? As in II. You know, IX from XI is II. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2010, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/100 "2010-02-03T04:28:55Z")
> [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](#): > > Are you speaking quite literally here? Are you saying that there are 1st graders who literally (_literally_) do not consider it obvious that 1 + 1 = 2? That seems to me like a kid not understanding that a bottle is not empty if it is full. Yes, I am speaking literally. She’s had kids in her class (and remember, these are mostly 5 year olds) who, when asked what one plus one is, give her a totally blank look. Not too many, thank goodness, but it happens. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309.md?page=6)