Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

Just a thought

Rather than fighting tooth and nail over whether every single entry is "notable" or fits the standard for inclusion for the article, why not try to really nail down objectively what those standards are? It seems to me that a lot of the recent disputes come from tension between those who would apply a very strict criterion for inclusion and those who would be more liberal about allowing stuff here. I am probably weakly on the first side but the important thing is to come to a consensus here that all can at least live by. Would an RfC help? --John (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some standards need to be enumerated or else this article will continue to be a hotbed of controversy.Asher196 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm strongly in favor of citing everything to reliable sources. But that's not the problem here. Even when you cite a WP:RS, it still gets reverted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the sources need to assert that the subject is a misconception. Short of that, we need a guideline for this article to help decide what is a "common misconception".Asher196 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Even when the source says it's a common misconception, it still gets reverted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The most recent source being argued over does not mention the words 'common' or 'misconception', or say any such thing. If you add a reliable source for something which has no business being in the article, of course it gets removed. --hippo43 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure it does, it says the "popular myth". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should add it to List of popular myths? Or point out where this source says it is widely-believed? --hippo43 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see the distinction between common misconceptions and popular misconceptions because they seem like synonyms to me. Even if we were to create a separate List of popular myths, that still doesn't address the fact that an editor continually rejects sources which everyone else says are reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See, this is what I suspected the problem was. A list article with a title and remit like this one absolutely has to have really firm criteria for inclusion, or we will have the same continual conflict as we have had. I already suggested an RfC; would a focused one to determine criteria we could all live by be of benefit? --John (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see what this solves. Creating a second article creates a second opportunity to be disruptive. I've seen no evidence that creating multiple venues to argue about will solve the problem. AQFK (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No, that was Hippo's suggestion, which I am not expressing an opinion on. My suggestion was to fix proper criteria here for this article so we wouldn't have all this bickering all the time. --John (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if my sarcasm was lost on some, but I wasn't actually suggesting creating another article. My point here is simple, and has been made by me and others many times in discussions above: this article is about "ideas which are well-documented to be ... widely believed..." "Popular myth" ≠ "widely-believed".
In the particular case we have been arguing over, the example is not "well-documented" at all, it is not "widely-believed", and it is not "factually incorrect". --hippo43 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The criteria would seem to be simple. This is not a conventional article, so any entry on it must be not a matter of differing opinion among reliable sources, they have to agree with each other. An entry has to be (1) demonstrably false; and (2) widely believed to be true. The sources need to agree with each other on both of those points. If they don't, if it's "maybe yes or maybe no", then it doesn't belong on the list. Here's a simple example: Getting warts from frogs. It's fairly easy to show that it's widely believed. It's also fairly easy to show that it's false. But supposing some reliable sources said it was true. Then it would be off the list. It has to be false beyond all reasonable doubt or qualification. Now let's consider another example: That George M. Cohan was born on the 4th of July. Except he wasn't, and that can be proven. But is it "widely believed"? Maybe it was at one time, but the average citizen probably doesn't even know who Cohan is, let alone anything about his birthdate. So it can't be on the list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, I think very little actual scientific research is done to determine which misconceptions exist and how widespread they are - I don't think anyone pays to have research done to find out how many people think Napoleon was short - he's just often portrayed that way. The evidence for the existence of "widespread misconceptions" is probably mostly anecdotal, which doesn't make it untrue but does mean that arguing about whether misconceptions are common enough to be in this article is most likely going far beyond what the sources ever had as data to begin with.
I'd be happy with the article including misconceptions that are scientifically falsifiable, and attributed to a reliable source as being misconceptions. The "common" or "widely held" criteria are mostly semantics that the original sources probably didn't have the data to back up anyway. Rpvdk (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe then the article name is part of the problem? List of misconceptions anyone? --John (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with what Rpvdk is saying. This is more a list of "things someone has said in a reliable source are common misconceptions" rather than "things which have been tested and shown to be common misconceptions." I think, though, that List of misconceptions, as well as being of little use to anyone, would quickly become one of the biggest articles in the encyclopedia. --hippo43 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
List articles inherently suffer from bloat, and this is why they need criteria to prevent them expanding without limit. Per Bugs above, but there is a problem with saying "the average citizen"; citizen of where? Different cultures will have different misconceptions, and one person's misconception may never have crossed another person's mind. --John (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree. There is a kind of underlying assumption here that "widely believed" means widely believed among people in general. However, sources are written for particular audiences, not to meet the standards of this article. So if American Beekeeping magazine, generally a reliable source, wrote "it is a common misconception that Abyssinian bees cannot fly backwards", it clearly wouldn't be a common misconception among Americans in general, never mind English-speaking Indians. The ridiculous Crookes radiometer discussion in the archives is a good example. --hippo43 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Draft criteria (edit or comment as necessary)

In order to fully comply with verifiability policy, all entries here must be verifiably (from reliable sources):

  • (1) demonstrably false; and (2) widely believed to be true (BB)
  • misconceptions that are scientifically falsifiable, and attributed to a reliable source as being misconceptions (Rpvdk) and
  • things which have been tested and shown to be common misconceptions. (Hippo43)
To be honest, I don't think "tested & shown to be misconceptions" is a plausible criterion, though it would be nice. --hippo43 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, by scientifically falsifiable I mean that the misconception can (at least in principle) be shown to be factually untrue and is not merely a matter of ethics, etiquette, style or opinion. I'm not arguing against entries on religion or language or such as long as they have a misconception that can be shown to be inherently false. Rpvdk (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I've tried to synthesize the best starting points in the section above. Once we have decent criteria for inclusion, I predict that a lot of the disputes would die away. --John (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be pessimistic, but in the past, there have been several attempts to nail aomw criteria down. In general, there has always been consensus that there needs to be a reliable source stating that an idea is widely believed, and a reliable source stating that it is false. This could be the same reliable source for both points.
As you can see, however, most of the disagreements have been caused by different interpretations of these points. For example:
whether a particular source is qualified to state that something is a common misconception. That is, a source may be an expert on bats, but not on what people in general believe about bats.
whether it is possible for something to be proved false
whether "popular myth", "oft-repeated idea", "widely-heard falsehood" etc is the same as a "common misconception"
whether widely-believed in a particular population means widely-believed in general.
It is exacerbated by journalists' reliance on the "common misconception" meme (is this point ever really fact-checked by a newspaper? Of course not.) In the end, because articles depend on consensus on these points, I can't really see the disagreements going away. --hippo43 (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see this as a reliablity issue. Items which are reliably sourced are still reverted. What are we supposed to do about edits which revert reliably sourced items on the grounds that reliable sources are wrong? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You're over-simplifying disagreements - I don't see that those kind of disagreements actually happen here. What sometimes has happened, and it happens all over Wikipedia, is that editors disagree over what a source actually says, or whether it really supports what an editor thinks it does. In those cases, here and elsewhere, we rely on consensus. --hippo43 (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That's why we seek opinions of uninvolved editors and you still revert items against consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
What purpose does your uninformed criticism of me serve? Does it address specific content disagreements? Does it help improve the article? Please at least try to be honest. --hippo43 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the "widely held" criterion can be maintained because of a lack of reliable research into how many people believe particular misconceptions, and even if there was, you'd still have to put a number on it to define what is "common" enough, and we'd be back where we started. Rpvdk (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Another problem

We have historical misconceptions and we have children's misconceptions. This dilutes the article somewhat, no? --John (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a note.

this. I reverted it, but it may bear consideration. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Random IP person added this comment: Actually, if the person who edited this page had any real knowledge of German grammar, he or she would know that to put a definite article in front of a word is wrong; thus "ein Amerikaner" is a type of sugar cookie whereas "Amerikaner" is an American, much the same way "ein Berliner" is in fact a jelly doughnut.
This person is suffering from the misconception, it is absolutely wrong. These people with "real knowledge of German grammar" should head over to [1] and read the Missverständnis im englischsprachigen Raum section. Rpvdk (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Right so "einberliner" is a jelly doughnut and Berliner is someone from Berlin. Just like "einamerikaner" is a sugar cookie and "Amerikaner" is an American You just said I'm wrong and then re-explained my point. You would say "Ich bin Berliner" because putting a definite article in front of a word is wrong. Do me a favor and actually ask a German. If you said "Ich bin ein Berliner" It would sound like you said "Ich bin einberliner" Meaning Jelly Doughnut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.72.29 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I did ask Germans, as linked above. From [2]:

In den USA entstand in den 1980er Jahren eine Moderne Sage, nach der sich Kennedy durch unsauberen Gebrauch der deutschen Grammatik zum Gespött der Berliner gemacht habe. Der Sage nach habe der grammatikalisch korrekte Satz „Ich bin Berliner“ heißen müssen (ohne unbestimmten Artikel), und Kennedys Wendung sei von den Berlinern als „Ich bin ein Berliner (Pfannkuchen)“ verstanden worden, worauf großes Gelächter ausbrach. Obwohl diese Behauptung nicht stimmt, erfreut sie sich in den USA immer noch großer Beliebtheit und wird mit großer Regelmäßigkeit meist als „I am a jelly[-filled] doughnut“ zitiert. (...) Abgesehen davon, dass der unbestimmte Artikel im Deutschen korrekterweise bei Nomen verwendet wird, die als Stellvertreter einer Klasse auftreten, war der Ausdruck „Berliner“ für den Berliner Pfannkuchen im Berlin der 1960er Jahre so gut wie unbekannt, da dieser dort einfach nur „Pfannkuchen“ heißt. Der Satz ist also korrekt und wurde auch vor der Rede entsprechend geprüft. Das Gelächter des Publikums bezog sich auf eine darauffolgende Bemerkung des Präsidenten, mit der er dem Simultandolmetscher für die Übersetzung seines deutschen Satzes ins Deutsche dankte.

QED. Rpvdk (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientists debunk the myth that you lose most heat through your head

Here's another source we can use to expand this article: Scientists debunk the myth that you lose most heat through your head. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That one's got some merit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, looks to be widely -held and untrue. --hippo43 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, work has been very busy lately and I haven't had as much of a chance to work on the article, but adding this is on my mental list of things to do, hopefully, this weekend. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article, at least, is absolute nonsense - it conflates "head" with "area covered by a hat", and contains statements that are simply inaccurate: circulation to the arms and legs is reduced in cold conditions, which is why you get frostbite before losing consciousness. The head isn't extraordinary in somehow magically radiating away a lot of radiation: it's merely a well-circulated set of organs with a much lower surface-to-volume ratio than the body as a whole, which inconveniently also has to exchange gases with the environment and thus cannot be covered up as easily as an arm.

It is patently untrue that "covering one part of the body has as much effect as covering any other", as the Guardian article claims (without, of course, making it clear whether this is in reference to equal skin surface area, equal volume, or even by count): for this to be physically true, skin temperature would have to be constant, something thousands of pyrometric images show not to be the case.

Most? I don't know. Most likely, it depends. But significant heat loss through the head far in excess of its proportion of body mass is real, well-documented, and anyone who believes the article's claim that covering up does not have an effect is, well, wrong.

Look, it's a Christmas paper. It's meant to be funny, mostly, and most of its statements are cited correctly in the form of "there's no evidence that" for a reason.

46.115.151.103 (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette

The claim that Marie Antoinette did not say "Let them eat cake." in those exact words fails to dispel the fact that this is the correct interpretation. In fact, it serves very well as a paraphrase. 71.100.2.16 (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

List of misconceptions? seems backwards

As stated here this isn't a list of MISconceptions. For example, "Christopher Columbus's efforts to obtain support for his voyages were not hampered by a European belief..." - so since this is a list of misconceptions, the misconception is that he WASN'T hampered by European belief in a flat earth? Shouldn't the list state the actual misconceptions and not the opposite? Either that, or the title should be changed. As it stands, its misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.42.114 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That one is not very well stated. There's one a couple of items below that starts out "It is a common misconception that..." That's the way to do it, except it could get repetitive. The typical way such lasts are constructed would be: MYTH ... FACTs ... ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of the items are written in a manner that assumes that the reader is already familiar with the conception. Bugs' suggestion is probably worth considering, and we've discussed it before, but I don't think any of us have enough free time to rewrite the whole article to fit a myth/fact format. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the IP would have enough time to ensure that the first line of each item states what the common misconception actually is? For the one he cited, the reader would already have to know the standard assumptions about Columbus, but they might not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
About the best I can manage for now is to check back here from time to time and see what people suggest. If I can make the time for it at some point in the future, I'll give it a shot though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.42.114 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Blue blood

This is interesting, but clearly not a common misconception, so I have moved it here:

  • Mammal blood is bright red or scarlet when oxygenated and a darker red when not oxygenated. It is never blue.[citation needed] Veins appear blue through the skin because of differential absorption of wavelengths of the blood's color by the overlying skin and flesh.[1]

There is no source for the claim that this is a common misconception. In fact, this list entry doesn't even explicitly make any such claim. Hans Adler 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

From my experience (though testimony is never sufficient), many of the people I meet have the idea that blood is blue until it "hits oxygen". I am putting it back in the article for now. Andrew Colvin (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • This is one of those misconceptions about a misconception. People who think this about blood are under the impression that they have some kind of insider information. It comes from the fact that blood IS much darker when inside the body than when it's dried on a surface, and the fact that veins are blue. People put those two together and reason that when you can't see it, blood is so dark that it's more blue than red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.140.63 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree this is a common misconception and should be in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.23.18 (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Eskimo words for snow

Can someone please add the 'eskimo words for snow' thing. It's been so thoroughly debunked and yet you still here reasonably well-educated people parrot it all the time. I once even heard a sociology professor - who should have known better - declare that the figure was 72 words. Definately deserves a place on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.93.246 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I second this. I was going to write it myself, because it's a personal pet peeve, but I don't have an account, and the article is semi-protected. Please refer to The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax by Geoffrey K. Pullum.

Duck's quack does not echo

Should this be considered a misconception? I understand that it does technically echo, but if the frequencies of the sound itself and the echo are so similar that it is extremely difficult to hear, isn't that essentially the same as not echoing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.140.63 (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's one of those bits of trivia that keep turning up on the internet, like the claim (once true, but no longer) that there was no Betty Rubble in Flintstone Vitamins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 69.137.140.63. We'd need to have evidence that many people believe it "doesn't echo" as opposed to that "we simply can't hear the echo for whatever reason" for this to be able to be included as notable and verified by a third party. Do we have any evidence of that? -- Renesis (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any. I think you'd have to be a little bit of an idiot in this day and age to believe that the sound that comes out of a duck has some magical property which allows it to resist echoing. I disagree that this is a "common" misconception. SnottyWong verbalize 15:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The usual wording of that statement is "a duck's quack does not echo, and no one knows why". This is clearly a false or misleading claim, but whether it's actually widely believed might be hard to prove. It's not likely to be on the average person's top 10 list of priorities. It's usually accompanied by such stuff as the outdated claim that there is no Betty Rubble in Flintstone Vitamins (she was added several years ago), and the old saw that no piece of paper can be folded in half more than 7 times (which the Mythbusters demolished). The last e-mail of that type that I got was 4 1/2 years ago, so maybe this kind of thing has run its course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If no sources exist to establish this as a common misconception, then it's inclusion in this article would be WP:OR. SnottyWong express 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. And if the "myth" is especially related to email claims, I wonder whether there is any reason Wikipedia should be duplicating Snopes' work. Some of the topics have Snopes as the only listed source. I think the opening statement of the article, that these are "well-documented to be both widely believed and factually incorrect" is a decent purpose, but when only one source exists, I'm not so sure I'd call it well-documented, and I definitely wouldn't believe it to be worth inclusion. -- Renesis (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Columbus' expedition to India

According to Felipe Fernandez-armesto Columbus was not heading to India, but to Asia. According to his book "1492, The Year the World Began", Asia was known by the name India, so Columbus' expedition was heading to Asia in general, and not India specifically. He also claims that Columbus gave different destinations of his expedition to different investors; to some he claimed there were islands in the Atlantic/Pacific ocean while to others he claimed he was heading to "India". Apparently he was fully aware of the size of the earth, but the only way to get investment was to claim he could make it all the way to Asia, which would result in large profits. When he came back from America he (falsely) described the people he met as Chinese looking, not Indian, supporting the claim made in "1492". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.81.15 (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What other authors reinforce what Felipe is saying? And how did they end up becoming the "West Indies" and "Indians" rather than the "West Chinas" and "Chinese"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is another Wikipedia page that says he was heading for japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth#Irving.27s_biography_of_Columbus

Apes vs Chimpanzees

I have corrected "Instead, it states that humans and apes share a common ancestor" to "Instead, it states that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor", for the following reasons:

(1) Humans are apes (Hominoidea) - defining apes in such a way as to exclude humans perpetuates the misconception of evolution as a "progression from inferior to superior organisms"

(2) The old wording seems to imply that the sister branch to the human lineage leads to all non-human apes, whereas in fact it only leads to chimps and bonobos; the others diverged from us earlier.

(3) Attempts to correct this misconception seem to be creating a new misconception that "humans did not evolve from apes" - see for example Stephen Fry's Book of General Ignorance.

I would also question the date of "5 to 8 million years ago" for our last common ancestor with chimps - I'm not aware of any recent evidence that suggests an older date than 6 MYA. 80.7.16.160 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A broader misconception is that humans descended from monkeys. As with the "Scopes Monkey Trial". That's a double misconception, as it also includes confusion about monkeys and apes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems with this article is that we get editors who drop by and change a couple words here and there. And then another editor, and another, etc. After a while, the article is out of sync with what the source actually says. That might be what happened here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
A consequence of the "anyone can edit" philosophy. Some writes something that's correct as per a source; then someone "improves" on it. Ya, shoor, yoo betcha! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Structure from Space

So the astronauts mentioned they didn't see any objects from the Moon. That doesn't mean nothing is visible from Earth's orbit, for instance where the IIS orbits. This is a poor argument lacking support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.187.69 (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to search for evidence that the space station residents have ever seen the Great Wall of China or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Entrapment

I believe the misconception surrounding entrapment goes further. As I understand it, it is not even entrapment if an undercover officer pressures you to sell them drugs for a week. To meet the criteria of entrapment, the baiting needs to be protracted and/or particularly forceful. 67.78.3.246 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientific method

It is rather controversial to call mathematics science and is considered by some to be a misconception. "or the abstract science of mathematics"

"and much important scientific work has come from curiosity and unguided exploration, for example, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, or the development of the atomic force microscope.[2][3]"

It is false to call the discovery of microwave background radiation scientific work. The discovery was an accident that was made possible by good engineering.

What is "unguided exploration" supposed to mean in these context. When scientist explores anything what he observes and understands is going to be measured against his/her scientific knowledge and therefore guided by his/her pervious knowledge of science. Even if a hypothesis is "pulling this knob might do something," it is still a hypothesis. The way this is presented in the article gives false impressions in my opinion.

Below is quoted from the main article.

Scientific method

  • There is no single, strict scientific method used by all scientists, a misconception popularized by elementary science textbooks. The rigid hypothesis→experiment→conclusion model of science is an important part of many fields, particularly basic sciences like physics and chemistry, but is not the only way to perform genuine science. Many sciences do not fit well into this mold, such as the observational sciences of astronomy or paleontology, or the abstract science of mathematics; and much important scientific work has come from curiosity and unguided exploration, for example, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, or the development of the atomic force microscope.[4][5]


  • Some of your points escape me entirely:
The whole reason math is included as an example is because it doesn't fit well into what people think of as science... that's why it's there. So it's moot to point out that it's controversial, that's the whole point. My university down the street still awards science degrees in math, and puts math in their science faculty, so as far as everyday use goes, it's not that controversial. I agree though that it shouldn't say "abstract science", that just clouds that matter further.
Science is the study of the physical and natural world, mathematics is used in that study, but the study of mathematics itself is not studying the physical or natural world. Math is not a science as far as I know.
Universities also teach Library Science degrees, political science degrees, masters in science in nursing, but that does not mean that these people have been trained to study the physical world however and that is not what they will spend their time doing in their vocation. This use of the word science is a hold over from by gone days.
If the discovery of microwave background radiation isn't "scientific work", why did Penzias and Wilson get the Nobel Prize for it? There's a huge jump from observations to conclusions in this case, all the stuff in the middle (and at either end) is "science". The fact that it was an accident is another moot point, many (most?) discoveries are accidents.
Their discovery of the meaning of their measurements did move science forward, but they were not trying to study the natural world when they built their device and made their measurements. Scientific discoveries are not always made when doing science. Just because a chemist accidental creates a wonderful candy which changes the culinary world, does not mean that he/she was cooking. Just because a cook accidentally discovers a potent anti-bactiral does not mean the cook was doing biology(or any other form of science).
And "unguided exploration" is just what it sounds, ie: unguided by theoretical concerns.
My point was it is impossible to be unguided by theoretical concerns. Even if you have only the vaguest of ideas before you set out to explore you system you are guided by theoretical concerns.
Most of the examples in this section are borrowed from Science Myths" in K-6 Textbooks and Popular culture, which at one time was cited as a reference. Someone later removed it, presumably because they thought it was an unreliable source. Hairhorn (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I read through some of their other myths and while they may be worded well for teaching k-6 science they do not always provide completely correct answers. The answers often neglect to answer the trickier bits of some of the myths listed there.

We don't seem to be on the same page. "Unguided exploration" just means you haven't set out to prove or disprove a particular theory, whereas you're arguing against pre-theoretic observation, no one has said anything about that, that's another issue entirely. Penzias & Wilson is a decent example of unguided observation.

Why you don't think Penzias & Wilson were doing science is beyond me; they did more than note a weird observation, they came up with an explanation for it, one that favoured one scientific theory over another. If that's not science, I don't know what is. As far as I can tell, your issue isn't with the examples at all, but with the misconception itself. You seem to think that P&W couldn't possibly have been doing "science", because they didn't follow the hypothesis-experiment-conclusion model, But this is simply the misconception that is being warned against. Hairhorn (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Evldice, 22 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Citation provided for the assertion that rocks are poor conductors of heat. Citation Link verified: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114407

Evldice (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

biting new comers

This applies to many articles, not just this one; still it is particularly appropriate to mention here. When a newcomer adds new information to an article like this, rather than revert it and fight against it, try to work with it and either find the appropriate reference or help the newcomer track it down. We want to welcome newcomers and teach them. We want to keep our minds open to new contributions. Kingturtle (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like nobody's been listening. Mokele (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
In the event that's directed at me (as I believe it is), disagreeing is not equivalent to "biting newcomers". Asking for a source is not "biting newcomers". Telling someone he is "ignorant", on the other hand, is biting, whether it's a newcomer or an old-timer. Cresix (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I was not referring to you, Cresix. Asking for a source is a helpful way to proceed. I think it is critical to help new comers learn the rules and procedures of Wikipedia. Providing an explanation on the new comer's talk page (including anonymous editors) is courteous and instructional, while reverting with no or vague wording in the edit summary can be alienating. Kingturtle (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Kingturtle. I never thought your comment was directed at me. I believe Mokele's comment was directed at me because I expressed disagreement and requested a source, and because he subsequently referred to me as "ignorant" and "lazy". Cresix (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement with Kingturtle's point. This is a problem all over Wikipedia. We're supposed to welcoming and helpful to the newbies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hair growing back darker / coarser

The article reads:

"Shaving does not cause hair to grow back thicker or coarser or darker. This belief is due to the fact that hair that has never been cut has a tapered end, whereas, after cutting, there is no taper. Thus, it appears thicker, and feels coarser due to the sharper, unworn edges.[57] Hair can also appear darker after it grows back because hair that has never been cut is often lighter due to sun exposure."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to make the case that hair, in fact, grows back both coarser and darker, albeit temporarily. I'm going to change the wording to make this more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.17.250.82 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you completely understood. The hair appears thicker or coarser but it isn't actually thicker or courser. It's possible that a case could be made that it is temporarily darker because of later sun exposure, but (no pun intended) that's splitting hairs. I think it's best to leave the item as it was. Cresix (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bumblebee misconception

Mokele (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added a misconception" that bumblebees aerodynamically should not be able to fly (the misconception, of course, is not true). My argument is that this has not been shown to be a common misconception. Yes, those who understand the intricacies of aerodynamics may have debated the issue, but this is a far cry from being a "common" misconception. I think we need some evidence that a lot more people than those with knowledge of aerodynamics have the misconception. Frankly, I think very few (perhaps almost none) outside that highly select group have even considered whether a bumblebee should be able to fly. If other editors are willing to accept by consensus that this is a common misconception, I can go along with it. But unless that happens, we need some evidence. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where one is supposed to get a source that something is a "common" misconception. Is there some sort of census somewhere? Was there a survey where people were asked "what stupid shit do you believe?" The fact that "bumblebee + impossible to fly" brings up 80,000 hits on google, including numerous pages of folks asking about it, disproving it, etc. should count for a lot, not to mention that the 3rd link down is a Straight Dope column. The Snopes forums are littered with references to it. While it may not be equally common in all parts of the world, it's extremely common in the US. Compared to some of the claims on here (many of which are highly region-specific, often to the US), this myth is extremely widespread. Mokele (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Mokele, your stating that "it's extremely common in the US" doesn't mean that it is. I could state that it is a common misconception that rocks are as soft as marshmallows, but that doesn't mean it's true. I have lived in the U.S. for 60 years and have never heard of this bumblebee misconception. I just emailed 13 normally intelligent people who live in the US, and none had heard of it. That, of course, does not prove anything. But it does challenge your idea that this is a common misconception, and that's why it needs a source. Other items on this page have sources that they are common misconceptions. The fact that you haven't bothered to look for proper sourcing does not justify placing this item in the article without a proper source. Please find a reliable source, or remove the item. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Googling "rock" + "marshmallow" produces 706,000 hits. When I Googled "bumblebee" + "impossible to fly", I got 60 hits. Number of Google hits is irrelevant. Cresix (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What do you honestly expect? Some sort of census of stupid crap people believe? That you haven't heard of it is irrelevant. It's addressed numerous times all over the internet, in specialty debunking sites like snopes and straight dope, and there's even a mass-market book relies on the myth as part of its title. What more could you possibly want? Spend some time on google, and get better at searches. Mokele (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Like everything else on Wikipedia, what I "honestly expect" is for you or someone to cite a reliable source that this is a common misconception. Not Google hits, not mentions on snopes. Other items on this page, when challenged, have produced the evidence that it's a common misconception, or they were removed. Instead of arguing with me, spend your time finding a reliable source. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. Please read WP:BURDEN. Thanks.
It's bedtime where I live. I'll check back in a couple of days to see whether there's a source cited. Cresix (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Define what such a source is, then. A webpage saying it's common? That's not enough, any idiot can crap out a webpage. Some citation in a book? Big deal, anyone can say something is common, and print books are no more reliable than webpages. Your dismissal of places such as snopes and straight dope is incorrect - if these places spent the effort to disprove it and put up a page, doesn't that indicate it's common enough for that? What about the book title? People don't name books after obscure myths unless they're being pretentious. You're clearly set in your mind, refuse to see any evidence you dislike, and refuse to even indicate what constitutes a reliable source on this topic. You've been given ample evidence, any failures from this point on are your own. Mokele (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't create a strawman and tell me it's my failure that you haven't provided a source. That's a common but weak and very irrational debating strategy. Your declaring a discussion finished does not make it so. Wikipedia has some excellent guidelines on what a reliable source is. Read WP:RS. And no, I haven't been given any evidence that this is a common misconception. That's what I'm waiting for. I'm not even saying this isn't a common misconception; I'm simply saying you haven't met Wikipedia's standards for verifiabiliy. So I'm out of here for now, but the burden of sourcing is on you, not me. If there is no consensus to keep the item, or no source to support your claim cited in the article, the item will be removed. Cresix (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I have also lived in the USA for many years, and I've often heard, like an old-wives tale, that scientists claim the bumblebee should not be able to fly, because its wings are too small for its relatively fat body. Everyone knows they can fly, there's no misconception about that. The misconception, presumably, is that some scientist somewhere once said they shouldn't be able to. So the question is, can anyone track down where the idea came from, that "science believes bumblebees should not be able to fly"? That could be the catch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Baseball Bugs, I don't think "science believes ..." is the key issue. The key issue whether a lot of people have the misconception. Maybe you've heard of it and Mokele has heard of it, but I've never heard of it and I suspect lots of people have never heard of it. All we need is one good source that states it is a misconception among a lot of people, regardless of what the scientists have debated. Cresix (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What, precisely, is the misconception though? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The misconception is the idea that the flight of the bee is impossible and/or that we don't understand it. Mokele (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's more of a joke than a misconception. Usually in the context of, "Oh, those dumb scientists, they think bumblebees can't fly." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from the end of Bumblebee, since some are too lazy to click a link:

  1. ^ John H. McMasters (March/April 1989). "The flight of the bumblebee and related myths of entomological engineering". American Scientist 77: 146–169. cited in Jay Ingram (2001). The Barmaid's Brain. Aurum Press. pp. 91–92. ISBN 1854106333.
  2. ^ Jay Ingram (2001). The Barmaid's Brain. Aurum Press. pp. 91–92. ISBN 1854106333.
  3. ^ "Bumblebees finally cleared for takeoff". Cornell Chronicle. March 20, 2000. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/March00/APS_Wang.hrs.html. Retrieved January 26, 2008.
  4. ^ John Maynard Smith. "Flight in Birds and Aeroplanes - Science Video". http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/84. Retrieved June 20, 2010.

Mokele (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The last two sources provide no indication this is a common misconception among non-scientists. I'll check the other two when I can. Cresix (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The 3rd one states, and I quote: "The computer-modeling accomplishment - which is expected to aid the future design of tiny insect-like flying machines and should dispel the longstanding myth that "bumblebees cannot fly, according to conventional aerodynamics"...". Mokele (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"the longstanding myth"? Among whom? Areodynamic scientists, or the general population. This article is about common misconceptions, not misconceptions among scientists. Otherwise we'll be creating an item for every major dispute among aracane subjects that scientists debate but no one else has ever heard of. The last two sources do not identify this as a common misconception. I'll check the other two later. Cresix (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I direct your attention, YET AGAIN, to the mass-market book linked to above whose entire title is a reference to this myth. If this were just some arcane bit of controversy in science, you wouldn't see it as the title of a mass-market book, would you? Are you seriously saying that you require the word "common" in a source, no matter how many sources devote space to the topic (itself an indication of how widespread it is)? That's pedantic and foolish. Mokele (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, in the video in the 4th link, and audience member asks the question about bumblebees (time 20:42) specifically referring to it as an "old saw". Mokele (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There is, I assure you, a common notion that scientists claim the bumblebee should not be able to fly. I've been hearing that for decades. It's typically used to make fun of scientists in general. But did any scientist ever say that? Or is it an urban legend? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The actual origins are uncertain - see Bumblebee#Flight for various possible sources of the original myth. Mokele (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Very good. You've demonstrated that there is sufficient evidence that it's not a misconception. Several scientists are in fact known to have stated that theoretically a bumblebee should not be able to fly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Um, no. Just about everything on this page is known by scholars to be false. That's not the point. The dispute is how many people hold the false belief. Mokele (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Everyone knows bumblebees can fly. The "misconception" can only be that people think scientists claim they shouldn't be able to fly. And as you have demonstrated, some scientists actually did believe that, or at least argued it. So it's not a misconception, although it might be an exaggeration, but that's not really the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone knows bumblebees can fly. And everyone I know, including myself, were taught, in school that scientists "proved" bumblebees can't fly. The idea that scientific study contradicts observations in nature is a commonly held misconception by laypeople. The fact that Snopes saw fit to address this also suggests that it is a misconception. I really don't see the point in this argument. The entry seems fine to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it didn't seem fine to me, because it implied the misconception was baseless, so I changed the wording a bit. It's not baseless, it's just obsolete. As per the link Mokele pointed out, a few scientists long ago came up with calculations based on flawed information, since corrected - but the myth persists. It's a bit like saying today that there's no Betty Rubble in Flintstone vitamins. I could say "It's a common misconception that there's no Betty Rubble in Flintstone vitamins. It was once true, but Betty was added a number of years ago." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I like your modification of that section. Much better than before. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some more possible references: The myth of the bumblebee an its origin is discussed in "The Strange Case Of The Bumble Bee Which Flew" by K.P. Zetie. You can find more background and references in Ivars Peterson's MathTrek of September 13, 2004, "Flight of the Bumblebee".

For more on the flight of insects, check out the web site of the Animal Flight Group of the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, and the web site of the research group of Z. Jane Wang at Cornell University. At the List of publications, you can download, among lots of other papers, the PRL from 2000 as a PDF file. More explanations about her work are in the Cornell Chronicle, "Insect flight obeys the principles of aerodynamics, CU physicist proves", and the Cornell Engineering Magazine, "The Truth about Bumblebees and other insects". On the work of the Cambridge group, and of a Berkeley group who pointed out the role of vortices and viscosity in insect flight, see "The buzz on bumblebees" in the November 2001 issue of plus magazine. --Ishtar456 (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Maybe this is a bit premature, but it appears that the consensus right now is one editor favoring the original edit, one editor who wants the entire item removed, and two editors who prefer Baseball Bugs' revision. So unless things change, it looks like BB's version is the one that stays. For all who discussed this civilly, thanks. Cresix (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I like BB's version too. Mokele (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
That makes a strong consensus. So it's settled unless there are other strong opinions expressed. Cresix (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You can add my name to the consensus but we still need to add cites to this item. The last I checked, it has no cite at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume you mean a source regarding how scientists came up with the notion that bumblebees should not be able to fly, right? Cresix (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Sources for the entire item. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, no offense, but that's kind of vague. I don't think anyone is disputing whether bumblebees can fly, or whether scientists now understand the flight process. Is there anything left except how the notion that bumblebees should not be able to fly got started? Cresix (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of vague because the first 2 sources listed above are books which I don't have ready access to. I'm just making a point that everything should be sourced IMHO. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand, and I agree. I think if someone will add a reliable source about the origin of the misconception, that should take care of it. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Aren't there sources given in the separate article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Pull-tabs

Maybe this belongs in an "urban legends" article rather than in this list, but a questioner on a ref desk was asking about the pull-tabs on soda/pop cans. That rumor has been around for decades and it's mostly false. Ironically, there are two misconceptions: one that it's totally true, and one that it's totally false. They're both wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, what's the rumor? Cresix (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This:[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree it's mostly false. I think the only truth here is in local areas (U.S., that I know of) where the tabs can be used for some charitable purpose. But I don't think it's consistent across all areas. My opinion is it doesn't belong in this article. Cresix (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fans cooling a sealed room

Fans do not cool. They move air. What's more, inasmuch as they're not 100% efficient, only a small portion of the electrical energy used is actually transformed into moving air. The 'waste energy' emerges as heat (put your hand on a running fan's motor to confirm this). A fan in a sealed room, discounting heat diffusion through walls, &c, will actually heat the room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seyorni (talk • contribs) 08:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

logic

The articles linked to for each of these misconceptions give the evidence for their being misconceptions. Should I just copy that here? TomS TDotO (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the question on the talk page. This is a frequent problem for this article. There are millions of misconceptions, some restricted to just a few people because of ignorance. There are misconceptions among a select group of people with some level of expertise in a matter. For example, there have been misconceptions among physicists about how or why atomic particles behave as they do; but that's a matter not even considered by most people, so it isn't common. (Note that I only provide the atomic particle issue as an example; I'm not claiming that the items you added to the article are more or less common that those involving atomic particles.) In the examples you provided the question is: do these misconceptions exist among a large percentage of the world's population (or perhaps in this case, the English-speaking population), or are these misconceptions restricted to those familiar enough with such idioms to misconstrue their meaning. The Wikipedia articles you link do not indicate how widespread the misconceptions are. I feel that very few people have these linguistic misconceptions, but that's just my opinion. You probably feel otherwise, but that's just your opinion. Thankfully, you brought the matter to the talk page rather than assuming, as many editors do, that if they believe it to be common, then it must be common. When opinions differ on Wikipedia, the matter is settled by reliable sourcing (and by that I mean that the misconceptions are common), or by consensus on this talk page. Your choices at this point are to find proper sourcing, or wait for a consensus here. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Just taking a brief look at the article, I didn't see much in the way of substantiating "this is a common misconception" for an entry. I don't know that there have been scientific polls taken on a lot of "common misconceptions". But one thing that I have seen in polls is that a lot of people don't know that the earth goes around the sun once a year - yet I feel that it would be out of place to mention that in this list. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No pun intended, but that may be a misconception because of what you don't see in the article. You might get a better idea by taking a close look at the revert history or the archives on this talk page. I'm sure there are items in the article that have not been substantiated; some of those may have never been challenged and so, by default, remain in the article. But actually, many items have been challanged, resulting in either removal (most of them) or provision of a source that clearly identifies the misconception as common (with wording such as "common misconception", "most people believe", "contrary to the thinking of most people", etc.). Regarding your edit, my personal opinion is that the large majority of the English-speaking population almost never uses the idioms, much less misconstrues them. I suspect some people hear them spoken on TV without giving much thought to what they really mean. But I certainly can accept that we have an honest difference of opinion on this issue. If these misconceptions are common, my guess is you can find a good source that states such. Or enough editors may agree with you here and that will settle the matter. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I could, I suppose, do some "original research" to substantiate my impression that these are "common" misconceptions, but that wouldn't be proper Wikipedian behavior. Anyway, are you and I the only ones who have any interest in this sort of thing? TomS TDotO (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Give it some more time. Usually there are a few more editors weighing in here. If not, it may be that the usual editors here don't feel strongly one way or the other. Original research may help you feel more strongly one way or the other, but you're right, it wouldn't fly here. If I were in your situation and felt strongly about it, I'd Google a few things and see what turns up. Cresix (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

While Sarah Palin did not say that you can see Russia from her porch, she did say that you can see Russia from Alaska: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=2 My take on the current version is that it suggests that Sarah Palin never emphasised the short distance between Alaska and Russia. The porch thing is just a minor point. Hell, I never even heard of the porch saying and still laughed about her emphasis on this distance as a major experience point in foreign politics. So I'm not exactly neutral on this one. But the current wording really looks fishy to me. 212.27.127.143 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I added the cn tag. I've never heard of the porch over here but certainly we heard of the other. Perhaps the editor who added it only a short while ago could give us a source.Fainites barleyscribs 20:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The porch thing is from an SNL skit, I believe. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have vague memories of Tina Fey as one of the highlights of the election. But is it a common misconception that Sarah Palin actually said it? On reading the above interview that matches my recollections, i.e. that she claimed special insight into Russia as it's close to Alaska, and I'm on the other side of the Atlantic. I can't imagine many people really have Sarah Palin and Tina Fey that much confused - so that definitely needs a source too.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with 212.27.127.143 on this one. Palin said you can see Russia from an Alaskan island, which is true. But it was clear to everyone except Sarah Palin that a factoid like that doesn't grant her any special insight into foreign policy. That's why it blew up so huge, and got parodied as "can see it from my house/porch/whatever". The exact wording is probably moot, I don't see how this is a misconception, I don't see a good source for it as a misconception. Hairhorn (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. What S.P. actually said: "They're our next door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." The context, not the quote, is the important part. Nobody thinks she actually said something so obviously untrue, so this is not a misconception at all. Besides, politics should be left off this page, or we'll never agree on anything. Both Palin and Gore should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdunn2001 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gore one is I think common: I remember reading maybe 15 years ago that he claimed to have invented the internet at a time when the internet was growing in such a way to make any such claim laughable. Snopes has the date it all started as 1999 so I may be misremembering somewhat, but if I'm remembering it at all in England then it must be fairly widely reported.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Gore, and have removed that. I'm not sure I understand the quibbling between "inventing" versus "creating" - they're both things he didn't do. Maybe it was clumsy wording and he meant something else, but so what? People are ridiculing him for that clumsy wording (just as they do for Palin, Bush, or any other politician); there is no misconception here. The other information on Snopes about how Gore did good things in promoting the Internet is beside the point, and a straw man - no one is claiming he didn't. The point is that he didn't "create" the Internet. Nor did he promote its creation through legislation - the Internet existed decades before the 1990s. Mdwh (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

She also claimed that Russia invaded US airspace, and that dealing with that was part of her experience. "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4478088-500803.html Dosbears (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the Palin one. As she said you can see Russia from Alaska, it's misleading to have it in as a "common misconception" that she said you can see it from her porch when all it is is a bit of satire. Fainites barleyscribs 11:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Inverted title

Is anyone else bothered by this? As structured, though it refers to common misconceptions, this article is a list of proper facts. Perhaps I'm being too literal, but I find it very distracting to read. For each entry, for each initial statement in it, I find myself saying, "Wait a minute, that's not a misconception, that's the truth!"

I think each entry ought to begin with a statement of the misconception, with some consistent typography. E.g.:

  • Scientifically, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. The flight mechanism and aerodynamics of the Bumblebee (as well as other insects) are actually quite well understood. A few scientists long ago, using flawed techniques...
  • The Coriolis effect determines the direction that water rotates in a bathtub drain or a flushing toilet, which is therefore in the other direction in the Southern hemisphere.[6] Generally speaking, the Coriolis effect is only significant at large scales...
Etc.

Or alternatively, the article could be retitled "List of refutations of common misconceptions". —Steve Summit (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I belatedly see that this has come up at least twice before: "What is true and whats not?" and "List of misconceptions? seems backwards". —Steve Summit (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I sort of see your point, but I think if we make such a change we may be trading one problem for another one. If we start out stating the misconception ("Scientifically, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly", I think the casual reader might be confused, thinking "Is this article saying that bumblebees should not be able to fly?" It might be clearer if the notation "Misconception: " preceded it (e.g., "Misconception: Scientfically, bumblebees ...), but I don't think that improves the article from a sytlistic point of view (not to mention that some of us might be annoyed by the repeated use of "Misconception: "). But I'm curious what others think about this.
I definitely say no to the title change; too long and awkward. Cresix (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The title could stay the same, but I agree that the wording is weird, in that it assumes the reader already knows what the misconception is, and is answering an un-asked question. Your typical writeup on something like this (see the Snopes format, for example) is to state the misconception, state its truth or falsehood (if necessary) and then give the explanation. Another approach would be to change the headings to questions that indicate what the misconceptions are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Another random example is "Napoleon Bonaparte was not especially short." To me that sounds like the misconception, and I would expect the next sentence to read, "In fact, he was not much over four feet tall." However, notice the quote marks. You could indicate the misconception by putting it inside quotes and following with the explanation. There are several better ways to handle this article than it is currently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious what other people think, too. The only thing I would ask is that we appropriately balance our concerns. On the one hand we have an abstract concern that, as Cresix put it, "the casual reader might be confused" by a structure we don't have. On the other hand we have numerous documented instances of readers who were perplexed by the structure we do have. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

2nd law of thermodynamics

A recent edit of mine was reverted with the comment "source does not identify as a common misconception among general population; maybe among anti-evolutionists, but that's a very restricted group. I've never heard of this one. Please discuss on Talk before restoring." Here's a slightly updated version of my contribution:

  • Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.[7] The law states that the entropy of a closed physical system cannot decrease over time; this is popularly misunderstood as "things can't naturally get more complex over time". Not only is this a misinterpretation of the physical law, the earth is not a closed physical system, so the law is being misapplied. The earth receives a massive amount of energy from the sun, which drives most of the biological processes occurring on its surface. The general increase in complexity represented by the evolution of complex life forms is possible because of a steady supply of useful energy provided by the sun (which is experiencing an increase of entropy as the earth experiences a decrease).

Okay, leaving aside the fact that many people will not have heard of some of the items on this list (I had never heard of the misconceptions involving King Christian X or meat searing, for example), so that's not really a valid objection... I think this is a pretty common misconception about evolution, which is the section it's in. Of course it's going to be more familiar to those who argue one way or another about evolution. The cooking misconceptions are more common among people who cook. So what? Anyway, the item is above so I'll leave it to others to decide if it's "common enough" to include in the article. - dcljr (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. This is a frequent problem for this article; look at the many reverts and extensive discussions on this talk page and archives. There are misconceptions. There are misconceptions held by many people in the general population. There are misconceptions held by very few people. And there are misconceptions held by a specific group of people (e.g., misconceptions by physicists about the nature and behavior of atomic particles). This article generally is limited to misconceptions held by the population in general. The problem with your addition is, in my opinion, most people never consider evolution in terms of the laws of thermodynamics. That's not to say that most people have never heard of controversies regarding evolution, but I'm far from convinced about the specific one you added. I don't doubt that a very narrow group of anti-evolutionists have given the matter a lot of thought, but I doubt very seriously than anyone outside that group or the scientists who refute them have ever even considered it. I'm a fairly well-educated, well-read person, and I've heard of lots of arguments for and against evolution, but never one couched in terms of any law of thermodynamics. But of course, that's only my opinion. In such a situation, there either needs to be a good source that the misconception is widely held among people in general, or a consensus is developed here to include the item. BTW, the cooking analogy is problematic because most people cook; most people are not very well versed in the laws of thermodynamics. Now if you meant something that was only a misconception among chefs, then you may have a point that such a misconception should not be included in the article.
Although I appreciate your concern that other items in the article may not be wideley held misconceptions, the argument that "other stuff exists" is rarely an acceptable justification for including something in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is in constant development. Articles have problems with sourcing or acceptance by consensus, but that does not mean that new unsourced or non-consensus information should be added. That being said, you are free to challenge anything in the article as improperly sourced. I would advise reviewing this talk page and the archives, however, because some items were accepted by consensus. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jihad

Amatulic twice added: "Jihad does not mean and doesn't necessarily imply "holy war". Rather, it means 'struggle', which is often supposed to be meant spiritually." As has been the case dozens (perhaps hundreds of times) in this article, there is the issue of whether this a COMMON misconception. Amatulic later added a source identifying the information as a misconception (among several misconceptions related to Islam), but I don't believe it is a common misconception. I raise the issue here to get opinions. Also, "jihad" has previously been discussed at Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 6 and Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 7 Cresix (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In the USA, at least, that term is typically used in tandem with "Islamic", and when people hear "Islamic jihad" they immediately translate that as "Terrorism". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That is likely one reaction. I think many people have never given the term much thought despite occasionally hearing it in a news report. I doubt seriously that a majority (or even substantial minority) of people connect it with "holy war". In any event, it needs a clear source that it is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no argument that it's a misconception. The fact that a Google search for "jihad misconception" giving over 1.2 million hits suggests that it's common. There really should be no issue on whether it is a COMMON misconception. It is unarguably a common misconception. A cursory Google search for 'jihad "common misconception" gives thousands of sources. I have added TWO such sources that actually use the phrase "common misconception" in the context of the western view of Jihad meaning holy war. How many more are needed before we invoke WP:DEADHORSE? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your addition of sources is certainly an improvement. Google hits, by the way, is not a source. Indirect statistics can appear impressive but say very little about the specific issue. For all we know, Googling "jihad misconception" could produce sources stating that it is not a common misconception, or that it is a misconception among a select group of people, or any number of other possible interpretations. But thanks for providing better sourcing. And please refrain from personal attacks in your edit summaries. Cresix (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for that, and wished there was a way to undo the edit summary as soon as I hit "Save". The fact remains, however, that I spent minimal effort finding decent sources for this. Anyone could have done that, or at least added a {{fact}} tag rather than deleting content that clearly enhances encyclopedic value. That's why we have that tag in the first place.
Yes, everyone knows that google hits are not a source. However, google hits are a good statistical indicator of prevalence when a random sampling of them reveal without exception that jihad=holy-war is a misconception. As I said above, this number of hits suggests that it's common. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted; thanks. The fact that anyone can add a fact tag does not reduce your responsibility for sourcing when editing. This is particularly true on this article because it is flooded with everyone's particular idea about what is a "common" misconception. Browse through the archives. I think it is safe to say that a substantial majority of the additions have no sourcing about the misconception being common. Fact tags often linger on articles for months. With most other articles I do add a fact tag. But not this one because many editors who add to the article don't even consider that their idea of a common misconception isn't necessarily shared by everyone. If we just added fact tags, the article would be frequently bloated with unsourced information. Anyway, thanks for resolving this peacefully. Cresix (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


This is certainly obvious to me as a common misconception, and the three sources currently in the paragraph appear sufficient to me. Please note that there is no consensus that this article should even exist, to put it mildly. Editors try to add all sorts of silly things as common misconceptions, so the current de facto consensus is that we are simply very strict on the sources: Upon examination of the most reliable sources available it must be clear that it is false, and a reliable source must state that it is a "common" or "popular" (or words to that effect) "misconception". Hans Adler 06:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No small part of the problem is that the Muslim extremists themselves apparently don't understand (or don't care to understand) what the jihad concept supposedly really means, which is the individual's "struggle" between good and evil. I don't know where Cresix lives, but if you were to ask the average American-on-the-street what "Islamic jihad" means, a large percentage of those who think they know what it means would say "Muslim terrorism", or "so-called holy war". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

While you are all debating whether the belief that jihad means "holy war" is common or not, the fact is that jihad can mean holy war. This is the sense the word had when Osama bin Laden declared jihad on the United States.[4] He did not mean he had an virtuous internal struggle, he meant to be declaring a holy war. Just because the Arabic word jihad means struggle, that doesn't mean that it cannot also mean holy war, just as "crusade" can mean two different things. Speaking of conceptions, it is a common leftist/terrorist apologist misconception that jihad does not ever mean holy war. Of course it does, especially the kind of jihad that Western non-Muslims responding to terrorism care about. DrStranger (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Jihad bil Saif. On these grounds, I think we should remove this supposed "misconception" from the article, because it is not a misconception at all, but simply one of the common meanings of the word. Does anyone really disagree with this well-established fact, explained in our own Jihad article? DrStranger (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I originally wanted the item removed because it had not been sourced as a common misconception, that problem has now been taken care of. Accordingly, I am now opposed to removing the item. I think your additions to the item helped clarify how the word can have a broader meaning than "struggle" in the appropriate context, but that does not diminish the fact that "jihad" in general is commonly misconstrued to mean "holy war". Yes, the word has nuances of meaning, but the misconception remains. Cresix (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The real problem is that two Muslims innocently talking in Arabic about the harmless kind of jihad can get in serious trouble because there is a misconception that the word can only refer to holy war. But it actually has a broad meaning similar to that of the vaguely similar word "crusade". The word often appears in English, but George W. Bush was the first person after a very long time who filled it with its original sense. (With predictable results in the Muslim world, where the word "crusade" seems to have a similar status to the word "jihad" in the West, and a similar misconception probably exists about it. Maybe someone finds a reliable source for that?) Maybe we need a more nuanced description of the misconception. Hans Adler 20:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It's possible that a lot of Westerners don't understand the literal meaning of crusade, but people in Arab countries tend to have a better historical understanding of the term, since their regions tended to be at the receiving end. The root of "crusade" is "crux", or "cross", and the Crusades were, literally, holy wars intended to impose Christianity by force on Arab-occupied regions. It's unfortunate the George Bush continued to use the word to describe the invasion of Iraq, even after the word's meaning had been pointed out, especially since the word "crusade" didn't seem to have previously been in common currency in US international politics (it did crop up in domestic politics when people campaigned against crime and/or corruption).
In the UK in the 1970's/80's , it used to be common to hear of newspapers having a "crusade" (usually a "moral crusade"), in the sense of having a rallying campaign for a values-based cause (although I haven't heard this usage for a while). But this isn't completely divorced from the original meaning, because some of the UK newspapers have traditionally aligned themselves with religious values (the logo of the Daily Express is still a "crusader" in chainmail with a shield-cross and sword, http://www.express.co.uk/home ).
In the US, the word seems to be subliminally associated with European heraldic tradition ... the "Batman" comicbook character is referred to as the "Caped Crusader" - this may link in to the character being commonly referred to as a (dark) "knight" - someone who wears body armour and engages in bloody hand-to-hand combat for a cause. An ongoing US-based association of knights with crosses was kept going for some time by the Klu Klux Klan. ErkDemon (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure whether you are arguing that UK and USA perceptions of the word are different, and this is all a matter of opinion, of course, but as someone who grew up in the USA and lived all over the world, I don't think there is a significant difference of interpretation in the USA. All of the description you gave from the UK is found equally in the USA. Your example about "Caped Crusader" is quite misleading. It's a phrase used somewhat with tongue-in-cheek and with hyperbole to describe a fictional character, and is generally recognized as such. Far more people are likely to think of the medieval crusades or a "moral crusade" when heard out of the context of "Caped Crusader". Cresix (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If you mean a more nuanced description of the jihad misconception, I think the sources already in the article, including the additions by DrStranger, have done that. Or did you mean something else? Cresix (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite good already. But it has the usual problem of not stating clearly enough what the misconception is and who has it. I am sure it's more common among Americans than among Turks, for example. And if I am right about the symmetry between jihad and crusade, it would be nice to find a reference that allows us to state both. I think it would be a lot more illuminating that way. But such sources may not be available in Western languages. Hans Adler 23:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ussher's date for creation

I just happened across yet another mistaken date and time given for when Archbishop Ussher supposedly said the world was created. (9 AM on October 27, in Stephen Hawking's latest book.) Does anyone think that it is worthwhile to mention the misconception, perhaps to the extent of giving a selection of some of the incorrect dates and times? TomS TDotO (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Vomitoria

For some reason, my edit adding a bit on vomitoria was reverted:

  • In ancient Rome, there was no wide-spread practice of self-induced vomiting after meals, and Romans did not build rooms called vomitoria in which to purge themselves after a meal. Vomitoria were tunnels underneath the seats in their stadiums which allowed crowds entrance and exit.

I'm a newbie, so perhaps someone more experienced can write this bit in whatever way is necessary so that it isn't reverted. The reason given was that it was poorly sourced, but my source was a link back to the wikipedia article on vomitoria, which itself is sourced, so I'm missing the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two major problems with your edit. It is completely unsourced; Wikipedia requires reliable sources for verification about the accuracy of edits. Secondly, not only must the actual misconception be sourced, you also must provide a reliable source that it is a COMMON misconception. Please read all the discussion on this talk page and archives for the many, many attempts (most deleted) to added misconceptions with absolutely no evidence that the misconception is common. Remember, what you think is a common misconception may not be a common misconception. Thanks. And BTW, new topics always go at the bottom of a talk page. Cresix (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks for your patience in explaining it to me, Cresix.
Thanks for an interesting misconception. I had heard the misinformation but didn't know it was wrong. But we are insisting on sources saying explicitly that something is a common misconception – not because that makes sense (claims that something is a common misconception tend to be rather random), but as a compromise between those who think this page is not encyclopedic and more trouble than it's worth, and those who insist on keeping it. Hans Adler 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I had heard the stories about self-induced vomiting long ago, but also long ago I became aware that the exit portals in a modern stadium are called "vomitories" by those who run the stadiums, i.e. they serve exactly the same function as 2000 years ago. So while the self-purging part may be a common misconception, I question whether "vomitoria" is a well-known concept. But as Hans says, sourcing is needed - both for it being a misconception (which is always the easy part) and for it being a common misconception (which can be much slipperier). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a great page. I hope it's kept. I have referred many to it. I note several unsourced things on the page (for example, the Mussolini trains running on time and the bumble bee flight). Confused as to why these are still on there while the vomitorium entry, which referred back to the Wikipedia article on vomitoria, which itself was sourced with three articles showing the misconception, was removed. Odd. The ways of Wikipedia are mysterious to us newbies, I must say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to challenge any unsourced or improperly sourced items. But also be aware that if another Wikipedia article is linked within an item that has proper sourcing, that usually is sufficient. Also note that some items were accepted by consensus as being common misconceptions. It's a good idea to review any discussion on this talk page (and the archives) to avoid repetition. But you're probably right; I think there are some items that have been in the article a long time without proper sourcing. I wouldn't remove them without discussing here first though. Cresix (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"But also be aware that if another Wikipedia article is linked within an item that has proper sourcing, that usually is sufficient." As I've now pointed out twice, the bullet point on vomitoria that you deleted linked to another Wikipedia article that has proper sourcing. So perhaps you can explain what the problem is. 199.106.103.249 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Based on the discussion, I'm restoring the contribution. If you delete it again, please explain why, since you have said that linking to a Wikipedia article with proper sourcing is usually sufficient. 199.106.103.249 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
First of all, it is entirely inappropriate to raise an issue on the talk page, then proceed as if no one plans to respond two minutes later. Now to the issue of the miconception. None of the sources clearly present the misconception as widespread. Please provide an unequivocal source, or wait for consensus here. And please wait more than two minutes. Cresix (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Cresix, if I find two sources, one that claims that the misconception of vomitoria as places of Roman purging is current in popular culture and another that claims that it is reputed that Romans vomited after fine meals in order to continue gorging themselves, will that satisfy you? 199.106.103.249 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
First, it's not just me who must be satisfied, it's a consensus of everyone who reads this talk page. This isn't about me; it's about Wikipedia policy and standard practices for this article. As for the first source, "claims that the misconception of vomitoria as places of Roman purging is current in popular culture", I personally consider that inadequate because a misconception in "popular culture" does not equate with "popular misconception" in my opinion; but that also would depend on how the source continues to describe the misconception; I would have to read the source more closely. The sources cited in the article on vomitoria don't describe it as a popular misconception as I see it. But that's just my opinion. If enough people here agree that the source is sufficient, that will be acceptance of the item by consensus. Cresix (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I question the notion that this is a "common" misconception, simply because I question the implication that the average citizen has ever even heard of the word "vomitorium". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"a misconception in 'popular culture' does not equate with 'popular misconception'". Ridiculous. 72.199.254.95 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Ridiculous": Your opinion. We all have one. Insulting editor's opinions does not advance your position. Cresix (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with Crexis' assessment that a pop-culture misconception does not equate to a popular misconception. For example, the idea that Columbus might sail off the edge was a popular misconception. That he always wore a funny-looking hat would be a pop-culture misconception. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Why do veins appear blue?" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-08-29.
  2. ^ "Berkeley understanding science: how science works". Retrieved 2009-05-15.
  3. ^ W. I. Beveridge (1960). The Art of Scientific Investigation. Vintage. ISBN 0394701291.
  4. ^ "Berkeley understanding science: how science works". Retrieved 2009-05-15.
  5. ^ W. I. Beveridge (1960). The Art of Scientific Investigation. Vintage. ISBN 0394701291.
  6. ^ "Bad Coriolis". Ems.psu.edu. 1996-10-16. Retrieved 2009-08-29.
  7. ^ Rennie, John (July 2002). "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense". Scientific American. Retrieved 2010-09-16.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_10&oldid=1092033827"