&gt;<i>That other patterns, aside from Fibonacci numbers, are found in nature?</i><p>Yes, and that most patterns misidentified as Fibonacci are not Fibonacci actually.<p>Both of which make the Fibonacci nothing &quot;special&quot;, in the sense of its usually touted (&quot;it can be found everywhere in nature&quot; etc.).<p>The same for the rest of stuff you mentioned. It&#x27;s written as arguments against things people say about the fibonacci series.<p>You just enumerating it and dismissing them as &quot;obvious&quot; is missing the point completely.<p>Of course they are obvious. That&#x27;s the whole idea: that the fibonacci claims are refuted by such obvious information.<p>&gt;<i>That washing machines obey laws of gravity and make spirals similar to some that are found in nature?
That photoshop exists?
That artists use &#x27;rules&#x27; as guidelines only?
That greedy people will use really stupid ways to trick people into buying things?
This is written as if it&#x27;s supposed to be an indictment of sorts, but after reading it, I&#x27;m no less interested in Fibonacci numbers, their occurrence (alongside other patterns) in nature, or the incredible contributions of a man who brought advanced Indian and Arabic math back home to white people who were still using Roman numerals.</i><p>Good for you. I, on the other hand, am.<p>Your comment seems more like a ill-spirited attack on the article than a valid critique of it, what with enumerating tons of arguments he gave as if they don&#x27;t mean anything (kind of like saying: &quot;so he says photoshop exists, big deal&quot;, &quot;so he says artists use &#x27;rules&#x27; as guidelines only, big deal&quot;, etc) when those are arguments he makes AGAINST commonly held beliefs about the Fibonacci series.