You're 100% correct, but no one can understand that

[WolfThomas]

This thread is about arguments in which you've been 100% correct on an issue and yet no one can understand that you are right.

I'm not talking subjective things like film and game quality, or even big things people feel fundamentally about such as politics or religion (please no "A christian wouldn't believe me when I said there was no god").

I'm talking about heavily supported scientific knowledge, laws in a state or who appeared in a movie, things that we can know the (or nearly) absolute truth about.

If this sounds arrogant I don't mean it to be, it's more exasperation I feel about these moments.

I've had two examples recently and one that keeps recurring:

1. Double lane roads 80km/h or under in Victoria Australia, you do not have to remain in the left lane unless overtaking that is for roads over 89km/h, I can drive in whichever lane I want. Stone cold evidence below:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/RulesStandardsRegulations/Victorias+road+rules/Freeways.htm

But try telling my sister that, she says her driving instructor told her the opposite, I said that the instructor despite her years of experience was wrong. She said I was "arrogant and petty". I said I was only really petty, I didn't think I was smarter than the teacher just more correct in this issue, that didn't make her happy.

2. While watching tv with a friend, someone on it said something about how a bullet hitting a helmet can sometimes break the person's neck. He said that was impossible due to newton's third law (equal and opposite reaction) and that the gun would need to fly backwards with enough force to break a neck.

I had to explain several times that while it has an equal and opposite force, Force equals Mass times acceleration, the bullet had a tiny mass and a lot of acceleration, the gun had less acceleration due to it's heavier mass.

Bit of discussion on this one, we didn't actually around to the helmet in our original discussion, it was more of a disagreement on how guns work. My friend couldn't understand why a gun didn't go flying backwards (moreso than normal)

3. Several years ago we got asked the Monty Hall problem at high school:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Essentially there are three doorways, two have goats behind them and one has a car (you want to win the car). You pick a door, then the host reveals a goat behind one of the doors and asks you if you want to swap for the remaining door. The question is whether you should swap doors, the answer being yes because your chance of winning the car is 2/3, rather than 1/3.

I had some friends though who couldn't understand that the two probabilities were linked and affected each other, they said it didn't matter and that the chance of winning the car was 50%. This argument spilled over into an English class, where the English teacher joined in...on their side.

I almost got into a lot of trouble when I told her that her opinion would have mattered had she studied maths rather than arts.

So have you been in similar situations? Please no religious or political flaming.

 

[Zelurien]

I recently had one where I was discussing Brownian Motion with a work colleague.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

She was convinced that the movement was bacteria, despite the particles you could see moving being several times smaller than the smallest known bacteria. Couldn't convince her without a slide show... which I did create. That showed her.

And going back to your bullet hitting a helmet thing. A lot of the opposite force of a bullet it released in sound and light from the muzzle flash, not all of it goes into the kick back. So your friend was indeed wrong.

 

[Sallad3n]

I'm sure I have been in several of those discussions but I can't remember a single one.

 

[zehydra]

No matter what you are always correct no matter how wrong you are.

Well said.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

Evolution. It's a Theory the same way that Gravity is a theory. Not that this is a common misunderstanding or anything, but die-hard, literal creationalists bug me.

 

[WolfThomas]

And going back to your bullet hitting a helmet thing. A lot of the opposite force of a bullet it released in sound and light from the muzzle flash, not all of it goes into the kick back. So your friend was indeed wrong.

Thanks, I was too obsessed with the F=MA equation that I didn't think of that as well.

Wow I'd never heard of Brownian motion, but skimming the wiki entry, I realised that I never wondered how such an everyday occurrence worked.

Evolution. It's a Theory the same way that Gravity is a theory.

We had a university lecturer who gave as a 50min presentation on how he proved/supported evolution by 11 completely independent points (can't exactly remember, there was the fossil record and how we breed domestic animals). I wished I'd gotten a copy of his slides. That said all the very religous people, not many like 3 or 4, walked out at the start.

 

[Zelurien]

And going back to your bullet hitting a helmet thing. A lot of the opposite force of a bullet it released in sound and light from the muzzle flash, not all of it goes into the kick back. So your friend was indeed wrong.

Thanks, I was too obsessed with the F=MA equation that I didn't think of that as well.

Wow I'd never heard of Brownian motion, but skimming the wiki entry, I realised that I never wondered how such an everyday occurrence worked.

It's something you probably wouldn't know about without looking down a microscope all day (which I sometimes do with my job) and I don't think it's really taught much. It's quite hypnotic to watch. How Einstein worked out why it happens is astonishing.

 

[WolfThomas]

How Einstein worked out why it happens is astonishing.

How? Wikipedia only mentions the paper he wrote.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

Evolution. It's a Theory the same way that Gravity is a theory.

We had a university lecturer who gave as a 50min presentation on how he proved/supported evolution by 11 completely independent points (can't exactly remember, there was the fossil record and how we breed domestic animals). I wished I'd gotten a copy of his slides. That said all the very religous people, not many like 3 or 4, walked out at the start.[/quote]

Probably similar ones to Richard Dawkins'. "The Greatest Show on Earth" was a great book.

 

[Zelurien]

How Einstein worked out why it happens is astonishing.

How? Wikipedia only mentions the paper he wrote.

He theorised that the movement of the particles was down to them being hit by molecules of whatever medium the partcles were in (let's say water molecules). From this theory and a little bit of observation he worked out the size of the molecules and their velocity. It was the first real evidence for atomic particles. Just by thinking about it... what a brain.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I often argue with my sister about stuff like this, but I've given up recently because when presented with the evidence she will just walk out of the room (And she's taking philoophy, a subject based around discussion. Hmm)

Most of the time I will never assert that I am one hundred percent correct though, because I don't really believe in facts and 'truth.' I have never been presented with something I couldn't find a clever way to argue against, not needing to resort to a 'I'm rght and that's that' argument. Mostly I feel it needs to be pointed out that what was believed years ago is not necessarily fact, despite being supported by the majority of the evidence of the time. The same will happen to things we hold fundamental to our beliefs today.

 

[WolfThomas]

He theorised that the movement of the particles was down to them being hit by molecules of whatever medium the partcles were in (let's say water molecules). From this theory and a little bit of observation he worked out the size of the molecules and their velocity. It was the first real evidence for atomic particles. Just by thinking about it... what a brain.

Huh the things you learn on the internet.

No matter what you are always correct no matter how wrong you are.

Yup and that's why "well that's your opinion" can be such an annoying argument at times.

Most of the time I will never assert that I am one hundred percent correct though, because I don't really believe in facts and 'truth.' I have never been presented with something I couldn't find a clever way to argue against, not needing to resort to a 'I'm rght and that's that' argument. Mostly I feel it needs to be pointed out that what was believed years ago is not necessarily fact, despite being supported by the majority of the evidence of the time. The same will happen to things we hold fundamental to our beliefs today.

This discussion isn't just about science though, I had a friend who had an argument over who played V in V for Vendetta (Hugo Weaving), this one friend thought it was Sam Neil another Australian actor (jurassic park guy). He actually bet and lost 20 dollars on this argument.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

I often argue with my sister about stuff like this, but I've given up recently because when presented with the evidence she will just walk out of the room (And she's taking philoophy, a subject based around discussion. Hmm)

Most of the time I will never assert that I am one hundred percent correct though, because I don't really believe in facts and 'truth.' I have never been presented with something I couldn't find a clever way to argue against, not needing to resort to a 'I'm rght and that's that' argument. Mostly I feel it needs to be pointed out that what was believed years ago is not necessarily fact, despite being supported by the majority of the evidence of the time. The same will happen to things we hold fundamental to our beliefs today.

I disagree. A common element of our cultural and scientific development has changed. Hundreds of years ago, superstition such as Spontaneous Generation and Flat Earth were widely held beliefs. These were the ideas that were proven false. Modern development, on the other hand, doesn't negate previous beliefs, but shows them to be incomplete. For instance, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity didn't show that Newton was wrong, but not completely accurate. Newton was still right, but he didn't understand the whole picture. Einstein isn't 100% correct either. But that doesn't mean what he says isn't true.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

Someone was convinced that there is a song called "Half the man I used to be" by Nirvana. Its actually Creep by the Stone Temple Pilots (I own the album, trust me I know). He still believes that it was Nirvana.

 

[reg42]

Evolution. It's a Theory the same way that Gravity is a theory. Not that this is a common misunderstanding or anything, but die-hard, literal creationalists bug me.

It depends. Evolution by natural selection is a proven fact, but people have trouble with it on a larger scale.

 

[sov68n]

Trying to explain to an idiot I work with that a plane on a conveyor belt will indeed take off.

 

[Twad]

Trying to explain to an idiot I work with that a plane on a conveyor belt will indeed take off.

Mythbusters made it happen, and it made perfect sense.. since a plane dont use its wheel for propulsion.

 

[sov68n]

Mythbusters made it happen, and it made perfect sense.. since a plane dont use its wheel for propulsion.

I know, and that's exactly what I had been trying to explain to him but it seemed he was too stupid to grasp the concept.

 

[Cargando]

That [i/]Physalia Physalis[/i] is not a jellyfish.

Spoiler: If you wondering, it looks like this:

[img/]http://pamiejane.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/portuguese-man-o-war.jpg[/img]
There, the Portugese Man O' War.

 

[Spacelord]

I fucking hate that Monty Hall problem. My mathematically inclined friend once tried to explain it to me while both a bit high. The resulting argument lasted for hours. And now it turns out he's absolutely right. God that's annoying.

I especially hate it when people argue a point they know nothing about based on a false premise. For instance - and this is with the same friend - he argued once that the phenomenon of a hypnotic state is 'not real', which is pretty retarded because both the hypnotic state as well as its influence on memory, suggestion and attention has been observed tons of times. He reasoned that people become hypnotised due to peer pressure, and that's why it wasn't real. Though I can kind of understand that line of reasoning, it doesn't really make any sense when you read it several times: you're essentially saying that due to the cause of the phenomenon, the phenomenon doesn't exist. Try arguing with that.

That said: I've mostly given up on trying to convince people of what's right. ^^ It only confuses and irritates a lot of people, and even if you 'win', you haven't gained much.