"Obvious Facts" Debate thread

Great Debates
41

That is true for evolution, but it remains that origin and starting point are synonyms.

Ok. So it is the ‘origin’ of the current incarnation of the universe.

Cool.

Disbelief means, “I believe this is not true.”
Lack of belief means, “I don’t believe it or not believe it.”

I am not talking about the Big Bang though. :wink: I am no more willfully ignorant on the subject than you are. I merely read evidence of the Big Bang and don’t choose to stake any ideological ground after hearing the arguments. You choose to take a side. That’s the main difference.

I am willing to bet that you are no more capable of doing the calculus on it than I am.

42

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.

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.

43

Fine. Doesn’t matter. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory only talk about what happens after the starting point. This is not semantics as the two questions are considered distinct and an area of study unto themselves (although such questions may be unanswerable).

You said you don’t believe it.

You did stake out ground. You said you do not believe it…several times including scare quotes around “facts” that are the underlying evidence of the Big Bang Theory.

You are correct I do not know the math. However I do read up on it. If the math was bogus I feel confident some scientists would loudly point it out in the peer reviewed literature. When the scientific community is in near universal agreement that the results of a particular test mean “X” I am happy to go with that. It is in their interest to point out the Emperor has no clothes if that is the case. The system works well in (generally) keeping everyone honest (I know there are cases of fudging or hiding data but in BB cosmology there is 80 years of studies…any fudging would have been spotted long ago).

Further, simple logic can guide you on this. Accept that the Universe is currently expanding then the reverse (going back in time) inexorably leads you to a Big Bang event. That or God created everything wholesale to make it seem like that is the case. Of course if we go with that then you can say God created everything 5 seconds ago and merely made us think we’ve been having this discussion.

44

Very good.

I am sorry that quotes scare you. That wasn’t my intention. lol

Unless of course the origin of this iteration of the universe is actually beyond the calculatory ability of all mankind.

Or it has something to do with the way perception works on macro-timescales.

45

My apologies for not continuing the derail, but from the original “facts” thread:

Sorry…it IS true. It is a scientific FACT that if you consume less calories than you expend, you lose weight, and if you take in more than you expend, you gain weight. No one on this planet, no one, can get past basic thermodynamics.

If you say the low calorie or low fat diet isn’t working, then it is simply not low calorie enough. Simply cutting out one source of calories often isn’t enough for a lot of people, because they often make up the calories from other groups, perhaps even subconsciously. But if your body needs, say, 2500 Calories a day to remain at a steady-state, and you keep taking in 2500 Calories a day, you’ll stay the same weight regardless of whether none of the calories came from fat, or if you cut out all carbs, etc…

Do certain hormones, moods, etc… affect this? To a degree, yes. but even they cannot overcome the basics of calories in > calories out = weight gain. A lot (or a little? I can never remember how it goes) of cortisol (cortisone? I get that confused too) cannot make calories from nothing…a “slow metabolism” (whatever the fuck that means) cannot make you get fat if you only eat three carrots a day.

Now don’t get me wrong, just because the math and science is simple, doesn’t mean it’s easy. I’ve never been overweight, but I have seen myself “slipping”, as it were, in that direction a few times, and even in my case of only wanting to lose 10 or so pounds, I found it hard to not snack on things I liked, or not eat foods I wanted.

Burt you still can’t get past the math…ever…at all.

46

Sounds like some new age hocus pocus you just made up.

Anyway, you can look to things like the abundance of light elements in the universe as a yard stick not connected to our perception. Big Bang Theory can make predictions about the abundance of various elements in the universe going back in time. As it happens studies made to date back up BBT. In fact it is pretty damn compelling for the Big Bang.

47

Actually, the limitations of perceptual augmentation tools is a commonly understood problem.

Assuming those assumptions are correct yes.

My argument is that they do not, ‘make more sense’. Making sense is of course unscientific. In fact they are pretty incomprehensible to the vast majority of people. Which is why you cannot make the argument without appealing to authority, because you yourself do not understand it, you simply accept it.

I continue to debate the topic. You continue to hijack the thread to defend Big Bang theory. Your defenses prove that I am obviously correct. If it were so obviously a better explanation, then it wouldn’t require a specialized set of technical skills to understand it myself.

48

Most people accept 1+1=2 without that being derived from Peano’s axioms. Should we remove “1+1=2” from the set of obvious facts since the proof of it requires a specialized set of technical skills that most people don’t understand?

49

No, because it’s obvious.

I must point out that I do not see your argument as being serious.

1+1 is obviously 2 in a way that Big Bang Theory is not obvious.

50

The defense of BBT is more to point out your glee at sticking your head in the sand and then picking fun with anyone who does not do the same.

Better explanations should not require a specialized set of technical skills to understand? That is one of the oddest things I have ever heard here.

Do you know what Integrase is? Do you know how to grow a crystal that replicates the Integrase Enzyme? Do you know how to use that crystal to design a new drug? Have you ever seen DNA and understand how Integrase deals with it and how a drug may be used to block those actions? I certainly don’t.

Well, scientists have made a recent breakthrough on this they feel will help develop new HIV drugs. I understand little of what they have done here and it absolutely requires a high degree of technical skills in that field to truly grasp.

I am fine though accepting that they have done what they say they have even lacking that specific knowledge.

51

I find this idea to be extremely challenging. On what basis do you think that good explanations for things need to be intelligible by people with no knowledge or training?

A clearly articulated explanation is different than a good one, for what it’s worth. One can clearly articulate a convincing-sounding but very bad explanation, and the inverse is also true. Clear articulation is better to messy articulation, but is certainly subordinate to goodness.

52

It’s not obvious because it’s not obvious.

The big bang is exactly as obvious as seeing somebody leave a room and then deducing that the person was in that room previously. The evidence for the big bad is just obtained through a different means, the logic is identical.

53

Sticking my head in the sand? This is nonsense, hyperbole. Unworthy of a real debate. Come back when have something more than petty personal attacks.

It’s odd to you to acknowledge that the requirement for highly technical skills makes something not, ‘obvious’ by definition?

So in administering a website is it then ‘obvious’ that one should use an .htaccess file in the folder one wishes to protect? Does it make the most sense as opposed to having a password protection within the architecture of one’s content management system? I mean come on, everyone knows that! They’re keeping their head in the sand if they don’t!

Yes, I know what integrase is. No, I do not know how to grow a crystal that replicates the Integrase Enzyme.

As I said above. BBT isn’t required to achieve practical effects that I experience in my daily life.

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.

I understand how Scientists make discoveries, and I understand the peer-review process. It’s you that is having trouble with understanding basic scientific epistemology.

Not me. I don’t accept anything until it is necessary. I choose not to hold a strong position on something I don’t understand.

54

They don’t, unless you’re asking whether or not they obviously make more sense than another theory. If it requires specialized technical knowledge then it is clearly NOT obvious that the theory is more sensible.

Yes.

It is obvious. If I have 1 apple, and another apple and I put them together, I have two apples. This is the last time I will address the difference between a basic axiom of arithmetic which works that way BY DEFINITION, and a scientific theory, which requires supporting evidence.

No.

55

Even if the Big Bang Theory is correct. That doesn’t make it OBVIOUS.

And no, it is not more apparent to the SENSES, than Genesis.

56

But nothing is obvious until you have the intellectual tools to process the information and to follow the logic. With this in mind, why do you think Genesis is more obvious? It requires lower barriers to entry to read, but there used to be much higher barriers to read the book of Genesis. But there are low barriers to enter to all sorts of non-obvious things, so I struggle here to understand what is so obvious here. A huge amount of ink has been spilled on the Genesis historically just because it is so difficult and fraught with illogic. Augustine wrote a voluminous treatise called On the literal meaning of Genesis in which he tries to explain away all of the craziness in the book. If you think Genesis is obvious, then I would venture to guess that you have not really tried to think very deeply about it yet.

Or you are just better at this than I am. I can hardly make sense of it.

57

1+1=2 is not a definition. It follows logically from axioms.

That’s not the point though. The point is that you argued that the big bang theory isn’t obvious because it requires specialized knowledge. The proof of 1+1=2 also requires special knowledge, but it is obviously true. Something has to give, and it’s clearly your assumption that things that require specialized knowledge for proof can’t be obvious.

The big bang theory is just retracing steps. That is exactly the same as watching somebody leave a room and figuring out that the person was in the room before. I don’t imagine you’ll agree though.

58

Then the less intellectual tools required to process the information the more obvious something is, and the more sense it makes no?

I never said Genesis is more obvious.

LOL

I seriously doubt that I am better at this than you are, I cannot even approach your level of intellectual discipline. I am a mere dilettante compared to 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.

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.

Clearly Genesis makes more sense to a larger number of people than BBT.

59

You grossly underestimate the importance of the endocrine system. 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. You are quite right in that, no matter what is wrong with you, if you eat nothing you will lose weight. You forget that we obtain more than calories from food. Vitamins, minerals, and various other essentials are also an essential part of a balanced, healthy diet. Some individuals may have basal metabolisms so low, that a diet with sufficient nutrients to support life and weight loss simultaneously does not exist or is not practical to implement.

For instance, I’ve seen a guy with grave’s disease who was eating over 5k calories per day, and still skinny as a rail. I’ve also seen a woman with idiopathic hypothyroidism who lost a considerable amount of weight when placed on thyroid replacement therapy.

On a more theoretical note, look into Prader-willi’s syndrome. These kids have a genetic disorder which FORCES them to eat insatiably. Similar problems may be observed in individuals who display a congenital inability to produce leptin, a satiety inducing hormone. Without the leptin, they eat and eat and become morbidly obese. Providing them with leptin supplementation reverses the behavioral disorder and returns them to a healthy state.

So while I sympathize with your sentiment, have respect for those with legitimate health problems. Most people who suffer from obesity have only themselves to blame. In reality, “themselves” is a complex web of hormones, environmental factors, peer pressure, and biochemical reactions which result in a summation of weight loss, gain, or stability. The only correct way of dealing with individuals for whom maintaining a healthy weight is a problem is to let them know that their weight problem is not their fault. It was set in place the moment they were born with their genes, their family, and in that particular geographic location under whatever economic conditions existed at that time. All that said, however, they still have the power to combat their weight with the assistance of their family and health care providers.

60

The definition of 2, is two 1s.

It requires knowledge that most people have, so no it doesn’t require specialized knowledge whereas BBT requires specialized knowledge that is limited to a few hundred or a couple thousand people alive.

I don’t imagine you’ll understand why I don’t agree. Something about orders of complexity, and the requirements for specialized knowledge.