![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I would like to have a section for, or point out, when misconceptions are more established than the demonstrable truth. Any belief that is held by more than 50% of the population even though it is disproved would be my definition of an established misconception. Saying that 85% of U.S. citizens believe Chiropractic is effective medicine, or 60% of people taking vitamins think it is good for them but are harmed by it, is markedly different than saying a lot of people(7%) believe MLK was shot on stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/14/5/455.abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 23:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
So, the question here, is not whether what I put was true, b/c those were just examples. Do you editors want a section dedicated to beliefs that are empirically proven to be held by more than 50% of the sample population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 00:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aUjbnt5zskwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=confidence+in+flashbulb+memories&ots=sip8wMjo0X&sig=HntcSY1pLARLl9xTbRsOgMnRRRo#v=onepage&q=confidence%20in%20flashbulb%20memories&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Since many of the beliefs here may be held by more than 50 percent of the population are we going to try to show that? Are we going to try to show the prevalence of any of these misconceptions at all. Using "common" as your only measure is very uninformative. TheThomas ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "list studies", but I never said that there is anything wrong with studies; I said every attempt here in the past to attribute percentages of people who subscribe to a misconception has met with major problems. First of all, there are not very many scientifically valid studies about misconceptions. Googling can produce lots of websites that claim this percentage or that percentage, but when you dig a little, you find out that almost all of them are very unscientific surveys, such as asking people at a meeting of enthusiasts about the paranormal whether they believe in Big Foot (that's a hypothetical example), or distributing a questionnaire to a class of college students (hardly a representative sample), or simply a POV-pushing website that pulls its facts and figures out of thin air. I don't have a problem with legitimate studies, but let's not assume that because someone puts forth statistics on a website that it necessarily reflects the truth. But if you can find scientifically valid, published studies that cite percentages to misconceptions, be my guest. (BTW, you sign your name with four tildes [~~~~]; that avoids a lot of confusion). Cresix ( talk) 03:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course you can find out how far off a biased study is if you have an unbiased study! In that case, you don't use the biased study; you use the unbiased one. Elementary logic. No, you're wrong. Every study does not have a sampling error of 10%. Each study has it's own degree of sampling error. Reading Sampling error. That's why Gallup or other pollster states "plus or minus 4.5%" or whatever the percentage is. And the sampling error is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than error from bias. If I select a stratified random sample and ask whether Obama is a good or bad President, the study will have a small sampling error (probably in the range of 3 to 5%). If I have a biased sample (such as 100 dedicated Democrats), then I will likely have a HUGE bias error that has nothing to do with the sampling error found in any survey. How much the error is can only be determined with another unbiased study, but even the unbiased study will have the small sampling error. PLEASE. Read about basic inferential statistics and Sampling (statistics) methods before you accuse someone who has expertise in statistical analysis and has published two dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals of making mistakes here. Now, I am finished quibbling with you because this has absolutely nothing to do with the consensus (unless you wish to cite a statistical survey) you need for the edits you have tried to make here. If you wish to have an academic discussion, go to a statistics blog. I don't care to have an academic exchange with someone who has such an unjustified condescending attitude about basic science. So write all you want here; just wait for a legitimate consensus before restoring your edits. End of discussion between you and me on this issue. Have a good day. Cresix ( talk) 20:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, this section isn't in need of consensus(just like with the bicycle). I'm not putting forward a stance(Just like with the bicycle). What I am doing is wasting my time arguing with someone who doesn't separate things mentally in a pattern like I do. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheThomas (
talk •
contribs)
21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The question still stands. Does anybody like the idea of either, adding hard numbers from studies or adding a section with misconceptions that are more common than the truth which are all backed by hard numbers, to this article? Thereby establishing some measure of "common", which is lacking in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
And who the hell deleted my sourced material? And who honestly thinks gyroscopes aren't stabilizing? The bicycle section makes a factual statement. "The stability of a bicycle is determined by its geometry and the rider's ability to counteract tilting by steering." That statement is wrong because it is incomplete and missing two components of stability. Also the first sentence is misleading, "Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle." Because gyroscopic forces are helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
You are destroying. If all you contribute is the button "undo" then this page would do fine without you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
72.187.199.192 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
TheThomas (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
A survey of the topics of interest make it pretty clear these are the same guy. He's not ready to be taken to
WP:ANI yet, but he's working on it. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→
18:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to your apparent expectations, "collaboration" does not mean cowering in response to your every demand. So far, some of your additions to the article have been accepted. Others have not been supported, and with good reason. Look around. That's how it works on Wikipedia. It's called consensus. An editor does not get everything he or she demands simply by repeatedly making the demands. This section on the talk page does not address any particular proposed items for or changes to the article; as such, it does not continue to serve any purpose. If you have additional suggestions for additions or changes to the article, please address them in another section. I'm finished here. Cresix ( talk) 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in other opinions about this item added at List of common misconceptions#Law. Are there problems related to WP:RECENT? Specifically, is it possible that this item will become outdated within a year or less? The source notes some variability through the years in perception of crime rate, but it is expressed in terms of decades, not years. Cresix ( talk) 18:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been covered before. Can we consider belief in the paranormal as a misconception? TheThomas ( talk) 10:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Tesla played only a minor role in the Invention of radio. The concept was clearly invented by Maxwell and first demonstrated by Hertz. As shown in the article on the subject, many others from several different countries played important roles. Tesla does not stand out as being particularly important. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I only asked the question. It seems from the replies that Marconi inventing radio is a common misconception and worthy of inclusion here. As for who did invent radio, I suggest a link to the Invention of radio article is the best way to go. I will add one. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly who invented the high-power, narrow band spark transmitter? Tesla played a major role: the invention of the transmitter, as well as the invention of CW transmission via a high frequency dynamo or "Alexanderson Alternator." Note well that if it had been left up to the secretive and business-incompetent Tesla, there might be no radio today. For that matter, if it was left up to Hertz there might be no radio today. Marconi founded a company based on Branly's coherer and Tesla's power-oscillator. Tesla founded a company based on secret unpatented devices to transmit industrial power in the low kilohertz range, with "radio" thought to only be a minor spinoff application. (Which philosophy and which business succeeded?) But Hertz invented radio (if not Maxwell!), and Lodge invented tuning. 69.71.180.53 ( talk) 20:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a list of potential items to add to this article once sourced, spellcheked, maligned, and usurped.
1) --was moved into main article--
2)It is a common misconception that human memory is a reliable system. In fact human memory is very unreliable by many measures, especially older memories. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-06-16/#feature
3) It is a common misconception in the U.S. that Chiropractic is effective medicine.
4)It is a common misconception in the U.K. that homeopathy is effective medicine.
5)It is a common misconception that caffeine promotes wakefulness even after years of daily use.
6) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
7) Math is boring. TheThomas ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
8)8) It is a common misconception that a short nap will promote wakefulness after the nap. In fact, a nap shorter than an hour and a half doesn't complete the REM cycle, and you wake at least as tired as you went to sleep. TheThomas ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
9) It is a common misconception in the youtube realm that The Twin Towers imploded
10)The U.S. President Barack Obama is misconceived to be the antichrist
11) It is a common misconception that Barack Obama has driven up the deficit.
12) it is a common misconception that Man and Dinosaurs coexisted http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312115133.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 ( talk) 09:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
13) It is a common misconception among the right in the U.S. that no communist country has lasted a substantial amount of years before collapse.
14)Americans Still Perceive Crime as on the Rise "Two-thirds of Americans say there is more crime in the United States, and 49% say there is more crime in their local area, than a year ago. This reflects Americans' general tendency to see crime rates as increasing rather than decreasing, even as government statistics note a continued drop in crime rates." http://www.gallup.com/poll/144827/Americans-Perceive-Crime-Rise.aspx
15) "The idea that sleep isn't as important to good health for older people as it is for younger people is a common misconception. Recent studies have shown sleep is particularly important to help prevent obesity and a decline in mental acuity late in life. Yet just 32% of Americans aged 50 and older say they get a "good night's sleep" every night, according to a new study Gallup conducted for the International Longevity Center-USA*. Americans in this age group report getting a good night's sleep an average of 4.8 nights a week." http://www.gallup.com/poll/20323/Older-Americans-Dream-Good-Nights-Sleep.aspx
16) It is a common misconception that the signing of the Declaration of Independence occurred on July Fourth. http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx "Fifty-five percent say it commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence (this is a common misconception, and close to being accurate; July 4th is actually the date in 1776 when the Continental Congress approved the Declaration, which was officially signed on August 2nd.) Another 32% give a more general answer, saying that July 4th celebrates Independence Day."
17)*Twenty percent of U.S. citizens mistakenly believe the 44th president, Barack Obama, is a muslim. [6] This belief among people is highly correlated with dissatisfaction with Obama's performance. Those who knew the President Obama's religion rated the job performance of the president higher on average. [7]—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
18)*According to PEW, 41% of the U.S. believes in at least one form of the paranormal. Some believe in multple types of paranormal phenomena. [8]
19)*It is a common misconception that all Dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago during the KT Extinction. In fact, one clade of dinosaurs, the Birds( Aves), survives today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
20)*Twenty-five percent of U.S. citizens do not believe in the Theory of evolution. [9] A lack of belief in evolution correlates highly with low educational attainment, and high religiosity. [10]
21) It is a common misconception that Hiroshima was a military target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 ( talk) 14:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The sourced material you removed pointed out, in the fourth citation, that we all have flashbulb memory, we believe they are more firmly rooted, and that is a misconception. That is a researcher in the field saying that this misconception is nearly universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.sagepub.com/bartolstudy/articles/Turtle.pdf Here's another one, page seven says nearly everyone will recall flashbulb memories with high confidence, but poor performance. High confidence is a strong belief in your capability to achieve the feat at hand. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do I get the feeling that the editor's true agenda is to push that particular organization? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
"People often have vivid recollections of their own personal circumstances when first learning about attacks on major public figures." Brown and Kulik (1977) Often...common...a tenuous link at best! "In this study, memories of the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan were obtained on questionnaires completed one and seven months after the shooting. Subjects responded either at one or both time periods. Most respondents reported flashbulb memories, despite a low incidence of reported rehearsal and low consequentiality ratings." Brown and Kulik (1977) Most respondents...common...a tenuous link at best! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T24-45RC7C7-5D&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F29%2F1984&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1545146040&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=52a67853b743ff8c93b745ef72621216&searchtype=a —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Bugs. It's settled. No consensus to make any of the changes currently under discussion. Thanks to all for your comments. Cresix ( talk) 17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't pull this stunt [1] again. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Any reasons you erased sourced material, from reliable sources, quoting these as misconceptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure if the average American were asked which country originated French fries, they would look at the questioner as if he had just asked what color the White House is. The attempt by some to rename them "Freedom fries" due to political issues with France speaks to the core assumption that they're of French origin. In France itself, these kinds of fried potatoes are called "fried potatoes" or simply "fries", which also has the the unfortunate side effect to a visitor (such as I was) of reinforcing the assumption that they're French, because why would the French bother to call them "French" fries? I recall many years ago when Harry Reasoner did a special called "An Essay on Doors". The only specific thing I remember from that program are his comment, "French doors are about as French as French fries - which aren't!" However, sourcing is needed. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if we should add an item about carrots improving eyesight. This was propaganda from World War II to explain why the Royal Air Force was so successful in fighting the Luftwaffe. Germans didn't understand the significance of radar so the British came up with a plausible explanation about carrots improving their pilots' eyesight. I haven't looked for any sources yet. I wanted to get some feedback first. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The citation titled "Is it Dangerous to Put Metal in a Microwave?" ( http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-dangerous-to-put-metal-in-a-microwave.htm) is an unsourced opinion in a blog. Does anyone have a citation to a reliable source to back up claim the that metal in a microwave oven can damage the magnetron by causing an impedance mismatch? An empty oven chamber has a nearly perfect impedance mismatch (basic physics; a perfect impedance match means maximum power to the load, and the walls and air of the empty chamber do not get hot, meaning very little power has been transferred, thus a nearly perfect impedance mismatch), yet microwave ovens survive that case just fine. Also, various types of automatic load impedance matching in microwave ovens have been around for years. See United States Patent 5512736 for one of many examples.
Although it would be original research and thus not usable as the Basis for a Wikipedia article, I would be most interested if anyone has ever burned out the magnetron in a microwave oven by putting metal inside of it. Where are the piles of burned out microwave ovens? Guy Macon 08:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There are enough problem with this entry that I support deleting it until new version is developed that overcomes there problems. Ccrrccrr ( talk) 03:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it needs a rewrite. I have no position about whether to delete it pending the rewrite; either way is fine with me and I will support whatever the consensus is. Guy Macon 09:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deoxygenated blood never becomes blue as depicted in many textbooks. It becomes a dark red. It is the veins around the blood that are colored blue.
Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood#Color
Kienle, Alwin (March 1, 1996).
"Why do veins appear blue? A new look at an old question" (PDF). Applied Optics. 35 (7): 1151–60.
doi:
10.1364/AO.35.001151. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
File:Blutkreislauf.png
Red = oxygenated
Blue = deoxygenated]] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.68.242.211 (
talk)
08:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Bloodbags.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.242.211 ( talk) 08:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Both sections 2 and 3 of the article talk about USA-based misconceptions only, however section 2 is called "United States politics" while section 3 is just "Law". Since no other section is named after a country, I request section 2 is renamed "Politics", and if in the future more misconceptions from other countries are added to the article then it can be split into subsections, just like section 1. 84.236.255.164 ( talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The gyroscopic effect is disregarded. However there are two parts to a gyroscope: First it resists turning of the axis of rotation. This effect helps slow the time-constant of the bike falling over once you have some speed. This is why it is more difficult to bike along at pedestrian speed than to pedal at normal bike-speed. The other effect of a gyroscope is: if you try to turn the axis of rotation one way you'll get a force in another direction. This effect, I think is meant when the references say that it doesn't impact bicycle riding (much). Rewolff ( talk) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article states that with the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment slavery was officially abolished in all of the United States. But that is in fact not true, since the Thirteenth Amendment allows slavery as a punishment for crime. Danvolodar ( talk) 10:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
My German teacher a native German told me this one. Are you sure that it is as misconcieved as stated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.76.21 ( talk) 11:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to jump in and say that the German public were, in fact, amused by this secondary meaning of "Ich bin ein Berliner". Near everytime I would get doughnuts in Germany, somebody would smirk and asked if I knew the story. The way the misconception is stated, it seems to indicate that there was no secondary meaning, and that Germans didn't find it amusing. I'll buy the idea the German he used was correct in the way he intended, but the external links from the article and everything I can find indicate that the secondary meaning was understood and laughed at. 142.162.19.202 ( talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm a German native speaker born in Frankfurt, now living in Berlin. It is true, that it would be more common to say "Ich bin Berliner", without the article, but it does not sound wrong to me to include it. It's also true, that "Ich bin ein Berliner" would be what one would say to identify oneself as a jelly doughnut. However, as the article correctly states, the word "Berliner" for jelly doughnut is common in most of Germany, excluding Berlin. I don't think the average guy who grew up in Berlin even knows that the word "Berliner" carries a second meaning outside of Berlin. That didn't stop anybody from having a small chucke over the anecdote. In Berlin Doughnuts are called "Pfannkuchen". Everywhere else a "Pfannkuchen" is just what you get when you translate the word literally - Pan Cake. -- 87.162.104.206 ( talk) 20:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The context of the phrase is misstated. See e.g. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkberliner.html so JFK was referring to himself, if only figuratively. 'All -- All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin. And, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."' Also, as a native speaker of german I can confirm the contribution from 87.162.104.206. 93.232.140.203 ( talk) 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It depends on where you are in Germany. As the article states, "Berliner" isn't used for a Jelly Doughnut in Berlin; however, it is used in other parts of Germany. To Berliners, the meaning was quite clear. In other areas of Germany, the double-meaning was present and it is a good joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.66.210 ( talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
When checking the cited source, it clearly states that, "Berliner" was not commonly used to refer to the doughnuts in the Berlin of the 1960s. As a German, I can verify that it is in fact a widely spread and very common word. I think most of the confusion arises from the fact that Germans nowadays think it's funny, but the Germans from that time didn't. I'd suggest changing "The word Berliner is not commonly used in Berlin to refer to the Berliner Pfannkuchen;" to "The word Berliner was not commonly used in Berlin at that time to refer to the Berliner Pfannkuchen;" (much to my own suprise as well btw ^^) -- 91.89.3.92 ( talk) 02:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Crane flies are often mistaken for male mosquitos. This is due to the commonly spread knowledge that male mosquitos are larger than females, and that male mosquitos do not bite humans. Male mosquitos are nectar feeders, and can be larger than females, but mosquito size is rarely larger than 16mm (0.6 in), compared to the crane fly whose average size ranges from 2 to 60 mm (0.08 to 2.4 in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StPuglo ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The current entry in the list says the following:
"Contrary to popular belief[161], there is no evidence that Jesus was born on December 25[162]. The Bible never claims a date of December 25, but may imply a date closer to September.[163]. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was likely chosen to coincide with the pagan holidays celebrating the Winter Solstice."
While the first couple of sentences are fine, the last sentence is itself a common misconception. The pagan holiday celebrated on December 25 was instituted by Roman emperor Aurelian (ruled 270-275 AD) as an attempt to unify the various pagan factions, due to his hostility with the Christians. The Christian use of December 25 was based on an old Jewish belief that the Prophets of Israel died on the same day as their conception or birth date. Early calculations (which were probably wrong) put Christ's death on March 25, hence it was believed that he was conceived on that day (now the Feast of the Annunciation, celebrating Gabriel's visit to Mary). Add 9 months to that day and you have December 25. Source: William J. Tighe, Associate Professor of History, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA as described in the article Calculating Christmas.
Bellde ( talk) 12:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I was indeed referring to Sol Invictus (see the source article I mentioned). Brumalia was indeed held on 25 Dec, as a celebration to Bacchus, and not the "sun worship" attributed by some to the Christian intent to take over the date. Lenaia was a minor holiday, and thus not likely a prime candidate for the early Christians to try and take over; Saturnalia was originally on 17 Dec and later made a longer celebration from 1-23 Dec, so close to 25 Dec, but not the same. The Sol Invictus wiki page refers to the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia as advocating for the pagan influence on the choice of 25 Dec, but that is an erroneous reading of the page (go check it out: [3].
The Sol Invictus article goes on to say that the view I expressed above is disputed by others (obviously true), including many Christians, but ignores the fact that the academically well-versed leader of over half of the Christians in the world (Catholics represent 50.99% of all Christians according to the CIA World Fact Book) does express this same view, so technically (although not necessarily actually) the Christian majority actually supports this view.
My suggestion for the misconception page would be to change the last sentence to something like "There are 2 primary schools of thought as to why December 25th was chosen to celebrate the birth of Christ: 1) it coincided with 9 months after an early calculation of Christ's conception being on March 25 (footnote: Calculating Christmas); and, 2) it served as a Christian replacement for the Roman holiday of Sol Invictus. Catholic Christians tend to express the former view whereas Protestant Christians the latter."
Bellde ( talk) 15:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to get all the verses out of the Gospels, however the bible, when taken at face value regarding the dates of John's conception, Jesus's conception, John's Birth, and then Jesus's brith comes out with a date of late December as the date of Jesus' birth. The first sentance regarding Jesus's birth says that there is no evidence, when there is some evidence that December 25th is the date when you put all the Jewish celebrations and 9 month gestation periods on a calendar. 155.13.48.128 ( talk) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I like your final solution. Bellde ( talk) 17:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
An alternate date of Christ's birth of April 17, 6 BC was proposed in the book "The Star of Bethlehem: The legacy of the magi" with further discussion on the author's website. This derived from planetary alignments that would trigger an astrological event significant to the magi. This would explain why no one in Judea noticed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheros3 ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that the single word "usually" needs to be taken out from the first bullet.
Completely pure water is not a good conductor of electricity.[146] In practical situations (such as bathtubs, flooded basements) water usually contains impurities (electrolytes) which allow for good electrical conduction.
In 'practical' situations (which I don't know what that means as many practical applications require pure water) or maybe better household applications, water ALWAYS has impurities. A perfectly pure water source would be lethal to humans due to Le Chatelier's principle as water becomes an aggressive solvent when pure.
This might clear up an misconception that in 'practical' applications there is sometimes 'pure water.' (It isn't even close in actuality.)
Merci. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.103.161 ( talk) 14:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a "citation needed" tag concerning Finnish and Polish emergency landing strips (what would be cit. 192). The following url http://alk.tiehallinto.fi/julkaisut/pdf3/lo_2010-18_lentokoneiden_varalaskupaikat.pdf (author: Liikennevirasto/Finnish transport agency) contains Finland's traffic authority's instructions about technical and other requirements for such a strip and should be sufficient evidence for their existence.
83.150.92.192 ( talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
//correction, after cit. 197
83.150.92.192 ( talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have heard repeatedly that while the US interstate highway system was not designed to have emergency landings, it was implemented by Eisenhower so that the Military could quickly transport personnel and equipment across the country as quick as possible, and that the overpasses on interstates are of a certain high so that missile transport trucks can pass under them. In addition, there are supposedly parallel highway access roads on most of the original overpasses so that in the even the overpasses were bombed, military transports could still continue along to the other side by using the access roads. Any validity to these claims? if so they should be added to the transport section
The common misconception is regarding the US interstate highway system being used for landing strips. While explaining this misconception the section illustrates that it is indeed true in some localities that highways have purposefully been designed as landing strips. In doing so it references Finland without a citation. This edit requests adds the citation requested but does not alter the section in any other way.
Please reconsider adding the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.27.102 ( talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"There is no evidence that Vikings wore horns on their helmets.[18][19]" seems to me too unexplanatory. I suggest two additions: firstly, that common Viking soldiers wore plain metal or leather helmets if any (this is backed up by the references already in place). Secondly, to my knowledge one part of the misconception of horns originates from the towns and villages that were raided by the "devillish" Vikings; especially religious accounts of these horrible and fierce attackers attribute them with horns as a sign that relates to devil. This may have lead to some imaginative artists depicting Vikings with both devil horns and also a tail in some occasions.
Unfortunately I'm not able to provide a good reference for the latter information, so I do not insist its addition unless somebody else can help with that. 88.195.167.85 ( talk) 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Are there in fact significant numbers of people who think that air is mostly oxygen? Unlike most of the other examples here, I've never heard anyone espouse this belief, and doubt that it is in fact a common misconception. 68.105.72.35 ( talk) 16:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What is the actual point of this article? Is it to eventually grow and become some kind of debunk page of misconceptions and (urban) legends, along the lines of Snopes? I know it might sound radical, but does it need to exist at all? It just seems like a massive "random trivia" or "the more you know" page to me. -- Popoi ( talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
In astronomy section, add the misconception that moon phases are caused by the earth's shadow:
PhiloHippus ( talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody please add the misconception about schizophrenia and multiple person(ality) disorder? Request it because i'm not natural english speaker and don't want to leave a mess of language here ;) -- 84.61.4.67 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC).
This TED video [4] exposes many misconceptions about Islam that could/should be added to the article.-- May Cause Dizziness ( talk) 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Multiple editors have been deleting sections of this article on the basis of there not being a source showing that it is a misconception or there not being a source showing that it is a common misconception. These deletions have, in some cases been made without regard to ongoing discussions on the talk page concerning those exact issues.
If the issue is whether the alleged common misconception is true or false, a good policy is that if the section has been in the article for a long time but unsourced or has a low quality source such as an opinion on a blog, remove any low-quality sources and add a citation needed tag. If it was just recently added, deleting it with a note that it was unsourced or poorly sourced is appropriate. Editors are reminded that "Citation Needed" notices, unless many months old, are not a reason to delete a section.
An open question s whether it is reasonable to expect a citation from a reliable source showing that something is a common misconception. A reliable source saying that X is false and Y is true is evidence that X is a misconception, but not evidence that X is a widely held misconception It is hard to see how anyone could know that for sure without conducting a public opinion poll. I would favor discussing proposed deletions based on how commonly held the belief is on the talk page and seeking consensus rather than simply deleting them out of hand. Guy Macon 22:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Could someone update this entry to distinguish between memory and attention span, as goldfish attention spans are actually quite short, and this is the origin of the misconception (wouldn't want to create a misconception the other way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.182 ( talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a common misconception that the Danish term Wienerbrød means that the pastry originates in Wienna (where they actually are called Kopenhagener Gebäck, meaning roughly Pastries from Copenhagen). The true origins for the Danish name was that the they were created by Austrian bakers in Copenhagen. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.88.105 ( talk) 10:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that the fact that the term turned up in this liste in it self proves that it is a misconception, common enough to make the misconception turn up on this list as "the truth". But who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.177.14 ( talk) 12:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that, although Napoleon was far from being a dwarf, he was pretty short. Notably so by European standards. As stated in the article his height at time-of-death was 1.686 meters (5'6.5"), which is shorter than the average person in all of the European countries listed on Wikipedia's "Human height" page, and is in fact shorter than the average Japanese man (who are a notably short people). I think it's a bit disingenuous to include "Napoleon wasn't especially short" on a page of common misconceptions, when measured against today's standards, he was in fact a notably short man. Perhaps when measured against the people of his own time, Napoleon was of average or perhaps even above average height, but if that's so the article should mention and cite sources to validate such an argument.
I'm not really sure how to sign this, but I am...
Jon Samuelson—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.29.24 ( talk) 10:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
According to
Average_height#History_of_human_height, the average height of French troops in the mid-nineteenth century was 1.65 m, making Napoleon slightly above average for the time. However, nobility tended to be taller due to better nutrition, so he may have been considered somewhat short among his peers. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.157.144.106 (
talk)
11:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
That's cool. I think the article should mention this fact, and link to it. I know that Wikipedia is a user-edited thing, an in theory if I think there should be a change, that I should just do it. But honestly, I think I'd just screw it up, so perhaps someone else should take care of it? -Jon Samuelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.29.24 ( talk) 11:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a common misconception even among adults that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted. According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed. Could this be a U.S.-only misconception? Evolution-scepticism is really a US phenomenon, and I doubt that most people in Europe, apart from small children, would ever claim this... 77.107.173.123 ( talk) 12:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This subject is already dealt with above. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
According to a german TV show (I do not remember which), this is incorrect. Fresh eggs are however easier to peel than older ones.
This requires a good reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.219.31 ( talk) 12:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on Sunday school classes I always thought men had less ribs than women. The first time I vocalized something about this unquestioned belief I instantly fell in the shame of my own misconceptions. I'm not alone There are too likely places to add this religious and health/biological tidbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Displague ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This is common enough that an article was written in 1995 about how many school children believe men have less ribs than women: http://discovermagazine.com/1995/sep/darwinsrib561/?searchterm=adam%20eve%20rib -- Skintigh ( talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This entry states that "Cattle are red-green color-blind." This is misleading (and might itself be deemed a common misconception). In fact, cattle are dichromatic (see Jacobs GH, Deegan JF 2nd, Neitz J., Vis Neurosci. 1998 May-Jun;15(3):581-4. "Photopigment basis for dichromatic color vision in cows, goats, and sheep."). While cattle might not be highly sensitive to the color red (which is what should be written to replace the quoted statement from the wikipedia article), it is not pertinent whether they are "red-green color blind" (deuteranopic) because the use of the cape in bullfighting does not rely on the distinction between the colors red and green. Furthermore, because cattle are not trichromatic (as are humans, where wild-type humans have three types of cone cells that detect red, green, and blue light), they don't have the opportunity to suffer "red-green color-blindness" as humans do. Red-green color-blindness can arise from mutation in either the red opsin or green opsin gene, leaving one less-able to distinguish the two colors. Because cattle don't have both a red opsin and green opsin gene, it is not possible for them to become clasically red-green color blind via genetic mutation.
The red color in the capes is used to hide the blood stains on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.28.224 ( talk) 10:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
129.2.131.170 ( talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Something to add to this section, if you examine the etymology of the word 'apple' in, I think, Old English, you find that the word was just a generic word for a piece of fruit, and did not specify any particular one. It was only later when its meaning changed but the Bible did not that the misconception arose that the forbidden fruit was an apple. Essentially it came about as a translation error in the Bible. Haven't bothered to track down the article I read this in, but etymological references should not be hard to find. 118.210.47.181 ( talk) 13:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Despite the decision in mid-2010 to remove this misconception, the following links (and there are tons more that can be found with a simple Google search) show that it is, in fact, a common misconception:
Not to intrude on the arguments of quality of sourcing, but I think most people know Fey said it instead of Palin. Most people attribute it to Palin on purpose to make her sound dumb, but intentional slander/misquotation is not the same thing as misconception. It belongs in the article about misquotations, but not here. (Just my two cents.) Spidey 104 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
how about an entry for the misconception that using aluminum pans or deodorant cause Alzheimer's or dementia? http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=99 i would say this is virtually as common as the "humans use only 10% of their brain" misconception (although not used quite as often in movies). Gobo2001us ( talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Under the evolution heading, the following clause exists:
"The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply doubt from mainstream science regarding its validity...."
A theorem might be valid, but a theory can only be strong or cogent. While this might be nitpicking, the logical import of the distinction is rather large. Thus, please replace the above clause with the following:
The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply doubt from mainstream science regarding its cogency...."
198.160.139.1 ( talk) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought this wording was actually weak. A hypothesis is an idea that fits known facts and observation, is testable, and is falsifiable. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, has been agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community, is the best explanation available, and often ties many different fields of science together into one explanation. For instance, evolution ties together what we know about inheritance, paleontology, DNA, microbiology, and even complex systems like populations and computer science. Gravity ties together classical mechanics, astronomy, relativity, etc. Germ theory of disease ties together observations in medicine, biology, sanitation, etc. -- Skintigh ( talk) 18:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who WKT, the author of the supporting text, is; but they seem to be confusing the lines between theory and law. It seems to make the case that they are essentially the same thing. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528971/scientific-theory This makes the whole paragraph suspect as it seems to be the whole argument. (SPZ)
There is dispute among scholars as to when the declaration is signed. Three of the signers themselves claimed it was signed on July 4th. "The" Declaration of Independence says July 4, 1776 on the back. It's possible the signers were lying or mistaken, and that the date was added by someone who didn't know any better, but I think there's enough doubt about this to warrant removing or at least modifying this to reflect that while it's pretty clear that not all the eventual signers were even present on July 4, we really don't know exactly when it actually was signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.72.35 ( talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
it might be appropriate, however, to clarify that it was printed and distributed on july 4th and 5th (hence the misconception), though not signed and entered into the congressional record until august 2nd. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html Gobo2001us ( talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"Although there are hair care products which are marketed as being able to repair split ends and damaged hair, there is no such cure. A good conditioner might prevent damage from occurring in the first place, but the only way to get rid of split ends after they appear is by a hair cut." Wow..I mean, I basically agree, but did someone look at the sources? What happened to reputation for fact checking? glamour, cbc,disabled-world.com?? Also, one source is even differing. I would call that baseless opinions at best. -- Echosmoke ( talk) 16:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
In a similar vein, no skin cream or other cosmetic product can "reverse aging", regardless of manufacturer claims. ArcheoPhyte ( talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Centrifugal Force," meaning a force which moves an object away from the center during rotation - for example, when you tie an apple to a string and twirl it around, the apple is being forced away from your finger by centrifugal force. Rather, inertia means that the apple will continue moving in a straight line unless it is held back by a centripetal force (the tension in the string). So if the string breaks, the apple will move away from the person's finger, but this is as a result of inertia, not centrifugal force. wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
I'm not an expert at wikipedia entries, but this would probably qualify as a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KC McGinnis ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The misconception that there is no centrifugal force is itself a misconception that is taught in schools. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force http://xkcd.com/123/ -- Skintigh ( talk) 19:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Spinoffs of the Space Program (Velcro, ...):
From http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html
Are Tang, Teflon, and Velcro NASA spinoffs? Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink's heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts' convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgalassi ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you know
Van Gogh did not invent
The Starry Night? There were starry nights going back as long as recorded human history and plenty of evidence they existed even before that. Also forests don't exist. If you examine closely you will rather see that they are in fact nothing but a collection of trees. I'm not convinced that if you look even closer that trees even exist, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Gripdamage (
talk)
16:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
In the secion "Biology," we see "Bats are not blind. While most bat species do use echolocation to augment their vision, all bats have eyes and are capable of sight.[124][125][126]"
It might be more accurate to say "all species of bat have eyes and are capable of sight" instead, since surely not *every* bat in the world is sighted.
76.19.66.41 ( talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe this edit is warranted, not only for accuracy but simply for consistancy in the sentence: "most bat species" is already in the first half the the sentence. Sexy plant lover ( talk) 05:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Nor was Copernicus. This is a VERY largely spread misconception about history. M.M. -- 82.120.133.118 ( talk) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Related with the discussion above --> Chapter 8 in: Ronald L. Numbers (ed.) Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). addresses the myth "That Galileo Was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism". In the concluding thoughts, it says:
In view of the available evidence, the most tenable position is that Galileo underwent an interrogation with the threat of torture but did not undergo actual torture or even territio realis. Although he remained under house arrest during the 1633 trial and for the subsequent nine years of his life, he never went to prison. We should keep in mind, however, that for 150 years after the trial the publicly available evidence indicated that Galileo had been imprisoned, and for 250 years the evidence indicated that he had been tortured. The myths of Galileo’s torture and imprisonment are thus genuine myths: ideas that are in fact false but once seemed true—and continue to be accepted as true by poorly educated persons and careless scholars. (p. 78)
Note: the first tree chapters of the book can be found here. -- Leinad-Z ( talk) 07:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you are confusing scientists. Galileo was threatened with torture by the church and imprisoned for life for his observations. Copernicus feared what would happen to him and waited until just before death until publishing.
However, Giordano Bruno was slowly burned to death by the church for his scientific work that suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe and the Sun is just one of many stars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno -- Skintigh ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} For entry under Section 5.2 Human Body and Health of the page "List of Common Misperceptions"
The entry reads:
Vaccines do not cause autism.[114] Current scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis of causation for more-common disorders such as autism.[115][116] There is, however, significant biological evidence showing that mutations in the genes related to glutathione, a critical antioxidant involved in the removal of mercury from the body, are found to be significantly more common in people with autism. [117][118][119][120][121][122][123]
My proposed change:
Vaccines do not cause autism.[114] However, according to the National Autism Association, and a legal case involving the CDC and Hannah Poling; thimerosal – a leading preservative used in multi-use vials for childhood vaccines does. This is a failure in the manufacturing process as opposed to a failure in the safety of vaccines. The additional cost associated with producing single-use vaccine vials that do not require preservatives such as thimerosal to guard against the introduction of bacteria from multiple needle punctures in a single vial will successfully neutralize the threat posed from heavy metal neurotoxicity in children.
Citing Websites:
“Deal in an Autism Case Fuels Debate on Vaccine” NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/us/08vaccine.html (Mar 8 2008: Jan 5 2011)
Thimerosal. National Autism Association http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php (Jan 5 2011)
“Vaccine Presentation in the USA: Economics of Prefilled Syringes versus Multidose Vials for Influenza Vaccination”. Medscape.com http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/733986 (Dec 15 2010: Jan 5 2010)
Reason for requested change:
The debate on Autism and vaccines is oversimplified in speech. Specifics were needed to convince the CDC during the hearing of Hannah Poling that there was merit to the claim of her parents. As such, the phrase "Vaccines do not cause Autism" is true, however, the claim that preservatives used in multi-dose vaccines are safe is false.
F0r4n4 (
talk)
03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
F0r4n4 ( talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Since these are fundamentally stories from the mythology of the United States of America and not "the Americas" it would be nice if this section was renamed to something more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.200.75 ( talk) 05:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
While not 100% accurate, extremely good longitudinal estimating methods were available and in use by China's naval exploration fleet led by Zhang He in the late 1300s. See here for more details. Explorations by European explorers including Columbus did not have this ability until far later. 70.137.130.116 ( talk) 13:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Under the heading "Human Body and Health," it states that there are more than 5 senses. While this is in fact correct, I would like to note that some of the other senses listed, such as relative temperature, pain, itching, and even the urge to urinate are all caused by touch. This seems fairly obvious to me. 98.16.208.55 ( talk) 06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you are confusing touch with physical contact. 111.69.248.240 ( talk) 11:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
They are sensed by different kinds of nerves. Ultimately it comes down to semantics, and biologically it makes at least as much sense to count them as different senses as it does to throw them into one category called "touch". 68.105.72.35 ( talk) 16:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Speaking about senses, you should also include the perception of polarization of light discovered by Heidinger, see Haidinger's_brush. The ability to detect polarization provides additional information that can be used to detect position of the Sun even if it is covered by coulds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.183.203.19 ( talk) 07:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few more that I would like to see added. I may add some of these myself, if time permits:
64.203.5.246 ( talk) 09:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
68.105.72.35 ( talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
arabic numerals where not actually an arab invention but rather invented by persian mathematicians in india, might consider adding an asia catagory to the history section -- RebAvi ( talk) 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If you do that, please add that actual arabic numerals differ from what we call arabic numerals in the west. 82.180.29.126 ( talk) 11:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
the fact that they are referred to as arabic numerals isn't enough to say it's a common misconception? RebAvi ( talk) 08:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Maitreya Buddha is not the second coming of Gautama Buddha, it is the fifth, as correctly stated here: [12] Pepa65 ( talk) 10:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy would be appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand.prabhakar.patil ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
While it may be true that the Inquisition did not execute any scientists due to their scientific beliefs, scientists have in fact been killed because of their belief in Mendelian genetics under Stalinism. While the excuse for their executions or imprisonments leading to death was that they were spies or sabotuers, as with other purges and show trials of the time the real reason was political, in this case their opposition to Lysenko's botanic theories.
182.239.133.206 ( talk) 13:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add an entry on the misconception that, in the US, if a suspect is not read his Miranda rights he is automatically freed? Seems a pretty common misconception to me, though, as with many such things, it may be difficult to source how common it is. In reality, such a failure only means that anything the suspect says afterwords (such as a confession) can be ruled inadmissible in court. All other evidence, including eyewitness, material evidence, etc. is still admissible and can lead to a conviction. - R. fiend ( talk) 14:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion of it being a "misconception" that Science and Religion are incompatible, relies on an equivocation about all three terms: Science, Religion, and compatibility.
For detailed discussion of this by Jerry Coyne, please reference this article. However, my basic point would be to ask that it be made abundantly clear: There IS and will remain an intractable incompatibility between scientific thinking/epistemology with regards to the falsifiability of hypotheses, standards of evidence, and the necessary modification of theories to accommodate/explain evidence
AND
Religious, dogmatic thinking that makes a virtue of faith (belief without evidence), and protects pre-existing beliefs at the expense of new knowledge.
Religious thinking and scientific thinking about "truth" in the world are fundamentally incompatible, and the common misconceptions page should be edited to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folboteur ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it be worth including a general comment along the lines that any word origin story that claims a word existing before the 20th century derives from an acronym is almost certainly false? Such etymologies are fairly common generally, even if individual ones (e.g. Fornication Under Consent of the King, For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge) may not be all that widely known. http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php is an article debunking a particular one (Ship High In Transit) that also mentions the commonality of such false etymologies and supports the contention that acronyms were not at all in wide use before World War II and were practically unknown prior to World War I (the ones it does cite from prior to that are, with the exception of "okay", clearly abbreviations rather than actual words... we read 1:00pm as "one pee em", not "one pum"). 68.105.72.35 ( talk) 17:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
An important point about misconceptions is that memories of misconceptions often fail to remember them as misconceptions. That is, telling someone that "it is a myth that the CRA caused the subprime mortgage" is likely to be remembered as "the CRA caused the subprime mortgage." 72.187.199.192 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC).
In the section on European history, the first bullet has two sentences on vomitoria. While both sentences are cited, the first sentence actually has two claims (that the Romans didn't vomit between meals and that they didn't build vomitoria to do so in) and only the second one is cited. Bastian964 ( talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
the following sentence was recently removed on the grounds that the editor did not see how it was a misconception: "* Purified water is not a good conductor of electricity. [13] However, in practical situations (such as tap water, bathtubs, flooded basements) water contains impurities ( electrolytes) which allow for good electrical conduction." The misconception is that people think that water is a good conductor, but it isn't. It is actually the impurities that are good conductors. 99.255.58.85 ( talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I propose we add a section to this article detailing the differences between thermal radiation and infrared. 74.68.114.111 ( talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Popular misconception answered on Answers.com and Yahoo Answers. Check answers 1, 2, 8 and 9 on Yahoo Answers, which are dead wrong, for helpful examples of the misconception. This popular misconception has been promoted by over-simplified classroom explanations of complex geological processes and may have been further popularized by a quote attributed to Henry Kissinger that “A diamond is a chunk of coal that is made good under pressure.”
Correct Answer:
Coal is an impure variety of carbon that is formed when decaying plant matter in a swamp or bog is shallowly buried beneath layers of sedimentary rock [ 1]. Small amounts of heat and pressure cause the plant matter to break down, liberating volatile compounds, however appreciable amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur are contained in coal in quantities depending on its grade [ 2].
Diamonds, on the other hand, form from relatively pure carbon under extreme pressure but, contrary to popular belief, relatively low temperatures [ 3, figure 4]. Diamonds may be formed by meteorite impact [ 4]or subduction of continental plates in continent-continent collisons[ 5] but these diamonds are typically microscopic and, in the case of continetal subduction, revert back to graphite before reaching the surface.
All of the diamonds that humans use are erupted from the deep mantle by exotic types of volcanoes known as kimberlites or lamproites [ 6]. The majority of these diamonds formed from carbon that was present in the mantle when the crust formed, but a small minority of eclogitic diamonds appear to have formed from carbon carried down on subducting oceanic plates, most likely as carbonate minerals or organic debris.
So coal forms in shallow sedimentary basins on the continents, whereas diamonds form 150 km below surface or deeper and there is no known mechanism for getting coal to that depth and back up again as a diamond. Moreover, coal forms from dead plants, and the youngest diamonds dated at present are a hundred million years older than the first plants to colonize the planet's surface [ 7, 8].
Editors may wish to condense this significantly. ArcheoPhyte ( talk) 01:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Under the Christianity heading,
"The Bible does not say Jesus fell to his knees under the weight or strain of carrying the cross and therefore the cross had to be carried by another. It has been assumed that Simon of Cyrene was told by soldiers to carry Jesus' cross because of Jesus being unable to continue due to weariness and exhaustion. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26). None of the accounts mention Jesus falling to his knees or being unable to carry the cross himself."
The misconception described in this entry is not "Jesus didn't fall to his knees" (as it sounds currently), it is "The Bible doesn't explicitly say that Jesus fell to his knees." Below is my suggested revision.
"The Bible does not explicitly give a reason why Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry the cross for Jesus. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers, but none of them specifically mention Jesus falling to his knees or that he was unable to carry the cross himself. (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26)."
Dcpelletier ( talk) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, gustatory neuroscience is still in contention about the presence of four or five types of taste. Umami is not widely accepted yet and is currently still in debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.236.82 ( talk) 01:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a "list of common misconceptions", but it is apparently list of facts. For example: one of the items on this list says "George Washington did not have wooden teeth." That is not a misconception. It should say "George Washington had wooden teeth". - JefiKnight ( talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"When a meteor lands on Earth (after which it is termed a meteorite), it is not usually hot. In fact, many are found with frost on them. A meteoroid's great speed during entry is enough to melt or vaporize its outermost layer, but any molten material will be quickly blown off (ablated), and the interior of the meteoroid does not have time to heat up because the hot rocks are poor conductors of heat.[47] Also, atmospheric drag can slow small meteoroids to terminal velocity by the time they hit the ground, giving the surface time to cool down.[48]"
I do not doubt the logic of this entry (or that it is a common misconception that meteorites are necessarily hot). But this is currently written as if freshly landed meteorites are always cool or cold. First, the sources listed are not clearly attributed to the correct information in the article. For example, source #47 is talking about the conductivity of rocks in the Earth's Crust ("meteor" or its derivatives are found nowhere in the article). And while this statement may pertain to a stony meteorite, it's probably not true of an iron meteorite. Source #48 is a book, which I don't have, but I trust that someone here might. Second, the only reference I can find to the statement that "many are found with frost on them" is in a forum discussion, author anonymous.
Quoted from the American Meteor Society's FAQ: "9. Are meteorites “glowing” hot when they reach the ground? Probably not. The ablation process, which occurs over the majority of the meteorite’s path, is a very efficient heat removal method, and was effectively copied for use during the early manned space flights for re-entry into the atmosphere. During the final free-fall portion of their flight, meteorites undergo very little frictional heating, and probably reach the ground at only slightly above ambient temperature. For the obvious reason, however, exact data on meteorite impact temperatures is rather scarce and prone to hearsay. Therefore, we are only able to give you an educated guess based upon our current knowledge of these events."
I believe the language in this entry should be softened to match what the AMS FAQ actually says, which is that they are not necessary hot. If no one objects, I can do this ASAP. (Unless some other sources to the contrary are found in the Bad Astronomy book?)
As a note: The discussion on this entry is in Archive #6 from 2009. It pertains to adding sources, which I find ironic in this sort of article (isn't the lack of sources how these misconceptions get started in the first place?) Will.i.am ( talk) 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
apparently some people believe this? is it common? http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.145.40 ( talk) 13:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There are clearly some common misconceptions when it comes to Galileo being held up as an example of science vs. religion. At least in US schools that was always the spin put on his story. 173.59.121.90 ( talk) 07:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a typo in the Human body and health section. The item talking about the brain continuing to create neurons. It says "we no know" when it should read "we now know." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.187.181.169 ( talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Could we possibly list the myth about the Chevy Nova failing in whatever Spanish countries due to "Nova" supposedly translating as "no go" (no va)? I've had quite a few Spanish, history, and sociology teachers mention this bogus story as fact, and it's always annoyed me. Some guy ( talk) 14:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a commonly told summer camp prank that if you dip a sleeping person's hand in warm water, they will wet their bed. This myth was tested and debunked by the MythBusters show (2009 season, series episode #136 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282009_season%29#Camp_Prank).
Do others think this qualifies as a common misconception?
Jhyrman ( talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This section is wildly off-base. None of the three references it cites state that it is a "misconception" that the numbered centuries and millennia begin in years ending in "1." And if it is a misconception, someone better send a memo to the rest of Wikipedia: 20th century, 2nd millennium, etc. This smells of original research and agenda-advancement via editing. Every authority on timekeeping and calendars I have ever consulted has been perfectly clear on the fact that, under the Gregorian calendar, the 20th century ran from 1901-2000. Will any editor step forward and produce an authority that says otherwise? (ISO 8601 doesn't even define centuries, so no soap there.)
You can say that the Gregorian calendar is "only a convention, man," to which the only possible response is yes--and so what? All definitions are conventional. You might as well say that it's a popular "misconception" that this comment was written in the year 2011. -- 158.111.5.34 ( talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Strongly support removal. The section as currently included in the page is at least misleading and arguably wrong. The existence of some alternative system that nobody actually uses (if you disagree, please provide cites showing this usage to be widespread, not merely showing that such a system does exist) does not mean that the system that everybody actually DOES use is now invalid. In the Gregorian calendar new decades/centuries/millenia do in fact start on years ending in 1, not years ending in zero. Ptorquemada ( talk) 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Under the Science and Religion section, the statement beginning "No scientist ever lost his life because of his scientific views..." is inaccurate. It may be true that Bruno's support for Copernicanism was not the principle reason for his execution, or even a contributing one. However, one of the principle charges against Bruno was his heretical belief in the plurality of worlds (see the Wikipedia entry for Giordano Bruno and references therein). Bruno held that the sun was merely one of many stars, the Earth but one of many planets and possibly that humans were but one of many forms of intelligent life. Bruno offered a partial recantation, eventually appealing to the Pope, but the head Inquisitor demanded a full recantation and found him guilty of heresy when he refused.
Bruno's religious beliefs and his apparently near limitless capacity for p*ssing off powerful political figures certainly were major factors in his fiery doom, but his scientific views were a contributing factor.
This statement is at best Controversy, not Misconception and should be relocated or removed. ArcheoPhyte ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
* Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers. * Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation. * Holding erroneous opinions about Christ. * Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass. * Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity. * Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes. * Dealing in magics and divination. * Denying the Virginity of Mary.
I hope this helps. ArcheoPhyte ( talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think saying that things that burn "flare" in pure oxygen rather than "explode" is largely a matter of semantics and the difference, if any, is going to be lost on the typical observer. I don't see that the sentence in question really adds anything anyway. Ptorquemada ( talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In addition "five times less oxygen" is clumsy and inaccurate. This should be edited to state "air has 1/5th the oxygen".-- 207.106.239.81 ( talk) 21:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that this entry be deleted, because I don't see any evidence for there being a misconception that is common. Ccrrccrr ( talk) 03:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that this paragraph is written by the point of view of the christian religion it seems to ignore the others. -- SoliDreamer ( talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Science/Astronomy subsection the article tells me that "It is a common misconception that seasons are caused by the Earth being closer to the Sun in the summer than in the winter." I'm trying to figure out how ignorant you would have to be and who you would be to believe that? To anyone who knows that the seasons are at opposite times in the northern and southern hemispheres (true for at least everyone I know in Australia), that alleged belief would make no sense at all. Does anyone really believe that? Who are these dumb people? HiLo48 ( talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems that some distinction should be made between misconceptions (that people almost always stop believing when presented with evidence to the contrary) and controversies (where people usually refute evidence against their position with an argument of some sort) another way to state this would be that it is only a misconception if people believe it because they never heard otherwise if people have heard the evidence against their position and continue to believe it (however wrong that position might be)then it is a controversy or a fringe belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.83.19 ( talk) 18:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely these belong in List of misquotations, instead ?
A beneficial side-effect of moving those would be to lose List_of_common_misconceptions#United_States_politics in its entirety - perhaps it was given undue weight in a global context, anyway - I guess many other countries mis-quote their politicians ? -- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
What is a common misconception and what is not? Who has decided this and based on what criteria ? Gnevin ( talk) 11:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with the assertion that sharks can actually suffer from cancer, it would seem that it is a rare occurrence. I disagree with the final statement that "current data do not allow any speculation about the incidence of tumors in these fishes." There is a great deal of research being conducted in this field, and there is some evidence to imply that sharks show impressive resistance to various diseases, including cancer. [7] [8]
The myth that eating shark cartilage will prevent cancer is certainly harmful, and I am glad that it makes an appearance in this article. However, I think it should be added that shark cancer resistance is an exciting developing field for disease research, that may lead to new cancer treatments in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.8.49 ( talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I archived all closed or resolved threads extremely early, because the page was simply unmanageable. If I archived something with ongoing discussion by accident, please pull it back in from archive 12 manually. If someone could go through and close out any remaining queries we have on the page, so we can take care of a few more as well, that would be fantastic. We still have about 100 open requests. Jess talk| edits 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Edit request from Dcpelletier, 7 January 2011
Under the Christianity heading,
"The Bible does not say Jesus fell to his knees under the weight or strain of carrying the cross and therefore the cross had to be carried by another. It has been assumed that Simon of Cyrene was told by soldiers to carry Jesus' cross because of Jesus being unable to continue due to weariness and exhaustion. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26). None of the accounts mention Jesus falling to his knees or being unable to carry the cross himself."
In response to my edit which would make the above entry conform to the format of the rest of the page, I received:
Declined - Your suggested revision does not address a common misconception. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
If my edit did not address a common misconception, the original bullet point absolutely did not either, so I would like to request that it be removed. As written, it is wordy, redundant, vague (is he talking about a belief about an event (Jesus falling) or a text (Wording in the Bible)?) -- AND, apparently, does not address a common misconception, so...
Remove the above quotation from the article.
Dcpelletier ( talk) 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this. We need to remove the items that are not substantiated as having the status of "common misconception". And we need to apply a high threshold to the "common", they need to be common in an absolute sense, not common within some baroque expert field. -- dab (𒁳) 21:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think editors are misunderstanding the "common" aspect of this article; we don't need an exhaustive list of every imaginable false belief listed here. See also WP:SIZE. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I tried adding a brief entry under the Science heading reading:
(First, astonishing as this may be -- it certainly was to me when I read about it -- please suspend your disbelief long enough to read the citations above, so that you can discover that this is, in fact, a misconception. Unfortunately, the best article is the one in the New Yorker, and the full text of that article is not available online except to subscribers.)
When I added this, User:Ohnoitsjamie deleted it and told me, "the article is too big as it is and doesn't need to list every misconception that exists. If you can get any kind of consensus on the talk page for it's inclusion, I'll leave it be." (Is it appropriate for one person to unilaterally deem an article too large and delete any further additions?) In any case, he apparently wants something like a poll of this page's followers to satisfy him that this is a common enough idea to merit inclusion in this article.
So, please reply to this comment to indicate whether you agree that the idea that "published scientific findings are reproducible" is commonly believed. Thank you. StepsTogether ( talk) 23:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A problem with the wording in the quote at the top of this section: The common misconception is listed as being that results should be reproducible, where as the sources instead refute the idea that results are reproducible. I believe that it is true that results should be reproducible and it is also true that many are not. Glossing over that distinction is like glossing over the distinction between saying "everything in Wikipedia should be based on reputable sources" and saying "everything in Wikipedia is based on reputable sources". I trust the editors reading this talk page understand the difference between those two! Ccrrccrr ( talk) 01:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is protected, so I can't edit it.
In the human body section, add a point for the myth that alcohol kills brain cells. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1103162109.html http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/10-brain-myths9.htm
In the physics section it says "Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle". But there are gyroscopic forces, and they do help balance the bicycle, so how is this a misconception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.64.192 ( talk) 18:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
unprotect to propose deletion. This article is nothing but a collection of vaguely related factoids, and is not encyclopedic. WP:DIRECTORY. Also it's US-centric, Template:Globalize/USA, assuming American tropes are universal and but especially identifying a Korean trope with a foreign tone. It's basically a gripe-list for American former middle-school students. 216.145.107.181 ( talk) 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this item needs to be clarified or deleted. "Because black hole formation is explosive, the object would lose a certain amount of its energy in the process, which, according to the mass–energy equivalence, means that a black hole would be of lower mass than the parent object, and actually have a weaker gravitational pull." A differentiation between the gravity within the black hole's event horizon and the gravity outside of the horizon should be made. If the above sentence were true for both places it wouldn't make sense why light can't escape the "lower" gravitational pull of the black hole when it could escape the "higher" gravitational pull of the star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmieman ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the idea of black holes being cosmic vacuum cleaners is that once things get trapped below the event horizon they don't get out (baring a very small bit of hawking radiation), where as matter approaching a star is repelled by the radiation pressure from the light (or more significantly for things like comets where there is a back pressure from water vaporising) and these effects do not exist for a black hole, there is simply gravity. Further more matter entering a star might well simply be blasted out as solar wind another effect not present with matter entering a black hole, although emission of x-ray frequency radio is fairly common from accretion disks. It seems the misconception is that black holes have a stronger asymptotic gravity field than the star they were formed from, rather then a serious dispute about their ability to "suck" stuff out of space. comment added by YetanotherDave ( talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
Various sources state that pyramids being built by slaves is a myth started a long time ago. 71.174.190.191 ( talk) 01:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
"This notion of a vast slave class in Egypt originated in Judeo-Christian tradition and has been popularized by Hollywood productions like Cecil B. De Mille’s The Ten Commandments, in which a captive people labor in the scorching sun beneath the whips of pharaoh’s overseers. But graffiti from inside the Giza monuments themselves have long suggested something very different." http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids
pedrorui Pedrorui ( talk) 14:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, someone with editing privileges should add this. I've always thought of it as a classic example of ubiquitous erroneous knowledge. 98.111.202.57 ( talk) 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
While I doubt anyone but zealous fundamentalist would doubt this, you should also mention that there is also no evidence that Jesus was resurrected on the Vernal Equinox either and that a great many of the symbols that are devoted to both of these holidays in reality have nothing to do with anything Christian at all.
The early church had to compete for worshippers with the pagan religions which were, quite frankly, a lot more entertaining for the majority of the population. Go to church and listen to someone drone on in a language you don't understand (Latin) or go out to the woods, get drunk, get naked and dance around a bon fire? See the problem... And much to the horror of the many of the priests, church fathers, etc. at the time, many people were doing BOTH.
The solution was to have the Christian holidays occur on the same days as the pagan holidays and in order to make the local populations comfortable with this new and unusual religion, it dressed itself up in the same symbolism.
Instead of celebrating midwinter and the return of the solar diety, we celebrate the birth of the baby Jesus.
Popular Christmas symbols: Tree, Holly, Mistletoe are all of pagan origin. - The prophet Jermiah condems Jews in the Old Testment for cutting down trees and bringing them into their houses - Quoting "Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."
Furthermore, during the Roman celebration of the feast of Saturnalia, pagans did decorate their houses with clippings of evergreen shrubs. They also decorated living trees with bits of metal and replicas of their God, Bacchus. Tertullian (circa 160 - 230), an early Christian leader and a prolific writer, complained that too many fellow-Christians had copied the Pagan practice of adorning their houses with lamps and with wreathes of laurel at Christmas time. He also complains about many of the early Christians participating in both Christian and pagan activities.
Mistletoe was considered magical for its ability to remain green when the rest of the tree was dormant. The custom of kissing under a branch of mistletoe hails from Norse pagan religion. Because the mistletoe was used to both kill and then resurrect the son of a Norse goddess, she blessed it so that anyone standing under it was entitle to love and protection.
Instead of celebrating spring the resurrection of some harvest diety, we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.
Familiar easter symbols like the egg, rabbit, and lily. Since spring is a time of growth and promise, fertility symbols have always been prominent. Anyone who has ever heard the phrase "breeding like rabbits" doesn't need to have the rabbit explained any futher. And the egg should be equally obvious. Easter lily was associated with fertility because of its similiarity in appearance to a certain male appendage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.81.135 ( talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless there are additional topics added to this section, it would be more appropriately titled "United States Law" recognizing its content as exclusive much the same as the preceding section is titled "United States politics" to reflect its exclusive content. 99.241.16.65 ( talk) 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} In the Physics section, please add "In a vacuum, an object, such as a spaceship does not need propulsion to keep on moving. That is because, according to Newton's Law, the law of Inertia states that an object will keep moving or or stay at rest unless an external force is apply, by which in space there are barely any air friction." Please make changes and edits accordingly, since I am not very good at writing. A good source would be Newton's book "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" or a blog explaining it http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/sciencefordessert/2011/01/08/propulsion-in-a-vacuum/
128.205.71.150 ( talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
First, before renaming the article, consensus should have been sought first. Second, I now have 2 talk pages showing up on my watchlist. Can someone fix this? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
Requested move/dated}}
List of notable misconceptions →
List of notable misconceptions —
Common is totally undefined whole notable is a well defined concept both on wiki and off it
Gnevin (
talk)
21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Cold is the absence of heat and hence cannot radiate any more than darkness (which is the absence of light). Cold objects (above absolute zero) in fact radiate heat ( blackbody radiation), just less so than warm objects. The illusion of cold 'radiation' derives from the cooling of air around cold objects as heat seeps into them. In a vacuum, you would nor feel any such 'radiation' of cold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.144.106 ( talk) 11:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone make "fan death" into a link to the main article? 216.243.36.162 ( talk) 01:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Fan death is not really a misconception the way it is stated here. There are 2 misconceptions about fan death: how it happens and that fan death is a myth. Fan death is not a myth according to the US EPA. http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/pdf/EHEguide_final.pdf page 37 section 4.2.2 explains fan death and how and it happens. JaySee55 ( talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)JaySee55
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I would like to have a section for, or point out, when misconceptions are more established than the demonstrable truth. Any belief that is held by more than 50% of the population even though it is disproved would be my definition of an established misconception. Saying that 85% of U.S. citizens believe Chiropractic is effective medicine, or 60% of people taking vitamins think it is good for them but are harmed by it, is markedly different than saying a lot of people(7%) believe MLK was shot on stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/14/5/455.abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 23:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
So, the question here, is not whether what I put was true, b/c those were just examples. Do you editors want a section dedicated to beliefs that are empirically proven to be held by more than 50% of the sample population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 00:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aUjbnt5zskwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=confidence+in+flashbulb+memories&ots=sip8wMjo0X&sig=HntcSY1pLARLl9xTbRsOgMnRRRo#v=onepage&q=confidence%20in%20flashbulb%20memories&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Since many of the beliefs here may be held by more than 50 percent of the population are we going to try to show that? Are we going to try to show the prevalence of any of these misconceptions at all. Using "common" as your only measure is very uninformative. TheThomas ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "list studies", but I never said that there is anything wrong with studies; I said every attempt here in the past to attribute percentages of people who subscribe to a misconception has met with major problems. First of all, there are not very many scientifically valid studies about misconceptions. Googling can produce lots of websites that claim this percentage or that percentage, but when you dig a little, you find out that almost all of them are very unscientific surveys, such as asking people at a meeting of enthusiasts about the paranormal whether they believe in Big Foot (that's a hypothetical example), or distributing a questionnaire to a class of college students (hardly a representative sample), or simply a POV-pushing website that pulls its facts and figures out of thin air. I don't have a problem with legitimate studies, but let's not assume that because someone puts forth statistics on a website that it necessarily reflects the truth. But if you can find scientifically valid, published studies that cite percentages to misconceptions, be my guest. (BTW, you sign your name with four tildes [~~~~]; that avoids a lot of confusion). Cresix ( talk) 03:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course you can find out how far off a biased study is if you have an unbiased study! In that case, you don't use the biased study; you use the unbiased one. Elementary logic. No, you're wrong. Every study does not have a sampling error of 10%. Each study has it's own degree of sampling error. Reading Sampling error. That's why Gallup or other pollster states "plus or minus 4.5%" or whatever the percentage is. And the sampling error is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than error from bias. If I select a stratified random sample and ask whether Obama is a good or bad President, the study will have a small sampling error (probably in the range of 3 to 5%). If I have a biased sample (such as 100 dedicated Democrats), then I will likely have a HUGE bias error that has nothing to do with the sampling error found in any survey. How much the error is can only be determined with another unbiased study, but even the unbiased study will have the small sampling error. PLEASE. Read about basic inferential statistics and Sampling (statistics) methods before you accuse someone who has expertise in statistical analysis and has published two dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals of making mistakes here. Now, I am finished quibbling with you because this has absolutely nothing to do with the consensus (unless you wish to cite a statistical survey) you need for the edits you have tried to make here. If you wish to have an academic discussion, go to a statistics blog. I don't care to have an academic exchange with someone who has such an unjustified condescending attitude about basic science. So write all you want here; just wait for a legitimate consensus before restoring your edits. End of discussion between you and me on this issue. Have a good day. Cresix ( talk) 20:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, this section isn't in need of consensus(just like with the bicycle). I'm not putting forward a stance(Just like with the bicycle). What I am doing is wasting my time arguing with someone who doesn't separate things mentally in a pattern like I do. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheThomas (
talk •
contribs)
21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The question still stands. Does anybody like the idea of either, adding hard numbers from studies or adding a section with misconceptions that are more common than the truth which are all backed by hard numbers, to this article? Thereby establishing some measure of "common", which is lacking in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
And who the hell deleted my sourced material? And who honestly thinks gyroscopes aren't stabilizing? The bicycle section makes a factual statement. "The stability of a bicycle is determined by its geometry and the rider's ability to counteract tilting by steering." That statement is wrong because it is incomplete and missing two components of stability. Also the first sentence is misleading, "Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle." Because gyroscopic forces are helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
You are destroying. If all you contribute is the button "undo" then this page would do fine without you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
72.187.199.192 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
TheThomas (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
A survey of the topics of interest make it pretty clear these are the same guy. He's not ready to be taken to
WP:ANI yet, but he's working on it. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→
18:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to your apparent expectations, "collaboration" does not mean cowering in response to your every demand. So far, some of your additions to the article have been accepted. Others have not been supported, and with good reason. Look around. That's how it works on Wikipedia. It's called consensus. An editor does not get everything he or she demands simply by repeatedly making the demands. This section on the talk page does not address any particular proposed items for or changes to the article; as such, it does not continue to serve any purpose. If you have additional suggestions for additions or changes to the article, please address them in another section. I'm finished here. Cresix ( talk) 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in other opinions about this item added at List of common misconceptions#Law. Are there problems related to WP:RECENT? Specifically, is it possible that this item will become outdated within a year or less? The source notes some variability through the years in perception of crime rate, but it is expressed in terms of decades, not years. Cresix ( talk) 18:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been covered before. Can we consider belief in the paranormal as a misconception? TheThomas ( talk) 10:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Tesla played only a minor role in the Invention of radio. The concept was clearly invented by Maxwell and first demonstrated by Hertz. As shown in the article on the subject, many others from several different countries played important roles. Tesla does not stand out as being particularly important. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I only asked the question. It seems from the replies that Marconi inventing radio is a common misconception and worthy of inclusion here. As for who did invent radio, I suggest a link to the Invention of radio article is the best way to go. I will add one. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly who invented the high-power, narrow band spark transmitter? Tesla played a major role: the invention of the transmitter, as well as the invention of CW transmission via a high frequency dynamo or "Alexanderson Alternator." Note well that if it had been left up to the secretive and business-incompetent Tesla, there might be no radio today. For that matter, if it was left up to Hertz there might be no radio today. Marconi founded a company based on Branly's coherer and Tesla's power-oscillator. Tesla founded a company based on secret unpatented devices to transmit industrial power in the low kilohertz range, with "radio" thought to only be a minor spinoff application. (Which philosophy and which business succeeded?) But Hertz invented radio (if not Maxwell!), and Lodge invented tuning. 69.71.180.53 ( talk) 20:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a list of potential items to add to this article once sourced, spellcheked, maligned, and usurped.
1) --was moved into main article--
2)It is a common misconception that human memory is a reliable system. In fact human memory is very unreliable by many measures, especially older memories. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-06-16/#feature
3) It is a common misconception in the U.S. that Chiropractic is effective medicine.
4)It is a common misconception in the U.K. that homeopathy is effective medicine.
5)It is a common misconception that caffeine promotes wakefulness even after years of daily use.
6) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
7) Math is boring. TheThomas ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
8)8) It is a common misconception that a short nap will promote wakefulness after the nap. In fact, a nap shorter than an hour and a half doesn't complete the REM cycle, and you wake at least as tired as you went to sleep. TheThomas ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
9) It is a common misconception in the youtube realm that The Twin Towers imploded
10)The U.S. President Barack Obama is misconceived to be the antichrist
11) It is a common misconception that Barack Obama has driven up the deficit.
12) it is a common misconception that Man and Dinosaurs coexisted http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312115133.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 ( talk) 09:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
13) It is a common misconception among the right in the U.S. that no communist country has lasted a substantial amount of years before collapse.
14)Americans Still Perceive Crime as on the Rise "Two-thirds of Americans say there is more crime in the United States, and 49% say there is more crime in their local area, than a year ago. This reflects Americans' general tendency to see crime rates as increasing rather than decreasing, even as government statistics note a continued drop in crime rates." http://www.gallup.com/poll/144827/Americans-Perceive-Crime-Rise.aspx
15) "The idea that sleep isn't as important to good health for older people as it is for younger people is a common misconception. Recent studies have shown sleep is particularly important to help prevent obesity and a decline in mental acuity late in life. Yet just 32% of Americans aged 50 and older say they get a "good night's sleep" every night, according to a new study Gallup conducted for the International Longevity Center-USA*. Americans in this age group report getting a good night's sleep an average of 4.8 nights a week." http://www.gallup.com/poll/20323/Older-Americans-Dream-Good-Nights-Sleep.aspx
16) It is a common misconception that the signing of the Declaration of Independence occurred on July Fourth. http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx "Fifty-five percent say it commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence (this is a common misconception, and close to being accurate; July 4th is actually the date in 1776 when the Continental Congress approved the Declaration, which was officially signed on August 2nd.) Another 32% give a more general answer, saying that July 4th celebrates Independence Day."
17)*Twenty percent of U.S. citizens mistakenly believe the 44th president, Barack Obama, is a muslim. [6] This belief among people is highly correlated with dissatisfaction with Obama's performance. Those who knew the President Obama's religion rated the job performance of the president higher on average. [7]—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
18)*According to PEW, 41% of the U.S. believes in at least one form of the paranormal. Some believe in multple types of paranormal phenomena. [8]
19)*It is a common misconception that all Dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago during the KT Extinction. In fact, one clade of dinosaurs, the Birds( Aves), survives today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
20)*Twenty-five percent of U.S. citizens do not believe in the Theory of evolution. [9] A lack of belief in evolution correlates highly with low educational attainment, and high religiosity. [10]
21) It is a common misconception that Hiroshima was a military target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 ( talk) 14:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The sourced material you removed pointed out, in the fourth citation, that we all have flashbulb memory, we believe they are more firmly rooted, and that is a misconception. That is a researcher in the field saying that this misconception is nearly universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.sagepub.com/bartolstudy/articles/Turtle.pdf Here's another one, page seven says nearly everyone will recall flashbulb memories with high confidence, but poor performance. High confidence is a strong belief in your capability to achieve the feat at hand. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do I get the feeling that the editor's true agenda is to push that particular organization? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
"People often have vivid recollections of their own personal circumstances when first learning about attacks on major public figures." Brown and Kulik (1977) Often...common...a tenuous link at best! "In this study, memories of the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan were obtained on questionnaires completed one and seven months after the shooting. Subjects responded either at one or both time periods. Most respondents reported flashbulb memories, despite a low incidence of reported rehearsal and low consequentiality ratings." Brown and Kulik (1977) Most respondents...common...a tenuous link at best! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T24-45RC7C7-5D&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F29%2F1984&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1545146040&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=52a67853b743ff8c93b745ef72621216&searchtype=a —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Bugs. It's settled. No consensus to make any of the changes currently under discussion. Thanks to all for your comments. Cresix ( talk) 17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't pull this stunt [1] again. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Any reasons you erased sourced material, from reliable sources, quoting these as misconceptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure if the average American were asked which country originated French fries, they would look at the questioner as if he had just asked what color the White House is. The attempt by some to rename them "Freedom fries" due to political issues with France speaks to the core assumption that they're of French origin. In France itself, these kinds of fried potatoes are called "fried potatoes" or simply "fries", which also has the the unfortunate side effect to a visitor (such as I was) of reinforcing the assumption that they're French, because why would the French bother to call them "French" fries? I recall many years ago when Harry Reasoner did a special called "An Essay on Doors". The only specific thing I remember from that program are his comment, "French doors are about as French as French fries - which aren't!" However, sourcing is needed. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if we should add an item about carrots improving eyesight. This was propaganda from World War II to explain why the Royal Air Force was so successful in fighting the Luftwaffe. Germans didn't understand the significance of radar so the British came up with a plausible explanation about carrots improving their pilots' eyesight. I haven't looked for any sources yet. I wanted to get some feedback first. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The citation titled "Is it Dangerous to Put Metal in a Microwave?" ( http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-dangerous-to-put-metal-in-a-microwave.htm) is an unsourced opinion in a blog. Does anyone have a citation to a reliable source to back up claim the that metal in a microwave oven can damage the magnetron by causing an impedance mismatch? An empty oven chamber has a nearly perfect impedance mismatch (basic physics; a perfect impedance match means maximum power to the load, and the walls and air of the empty chamber do not get hot, meaning very little power has been transferred, thus a nearly perfect impedance mismatch), yet microwave ovens survive that case just fine. Also, various types of automatic load impedance matching in microwave ovens have been around for years. See United States Patent 5512736 for one of many examples.
Although it would be original research and thus not usable as the Basis for a Wikipedia article, I would be most interested if anyone has ever burned out the magnetron in a microwave oven by putting metal inside of it. Where are the piles of burned out microwave ovens? Guy Macon 08:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There are enough problem with this entry that I support deleting it until new version is developed that overcomes there problems. Ccrrccrr ( talk) 03:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it needs a rewrite. I have no position about whether to delete it pending the rewrite; either way is fine with me and I will support whatever the consensus is. Guy Macon 09:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deoxygenated blood never becomes blue as depicted in many textbooks. It becomes a dark red. It is the veins around the blood that are colored blue.
Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood#Color
Kienle, Alwin (March 1, 1996).
"Why do veins appear blue? A new look at an old question" (PDF). Applied Optics. 35 (7): 1151–60.
doi:
10.1364/AO.35.001151. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
File:Blutkreislauf.png
Red = oxygenated
Blue = deoxygenated]] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.68.242.211 (
talk)
08:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Bloodbags.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.242.211 ( talk) 08:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Both sections 2 and 3 of the article talk about USA-based misconceptions only, however section 2 is called "United States politics" while section 3 is just "Law". Since no other section is named after a country, I request section 2 is renamed "Politics", and if in the future more misconceptions from other countries are added to the article then it can be split into subsections, just like section 1. 84.236.255.164 ( talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The gyroscopic effect is disregarded. However there are two parts to a gyroscope: First it resists turning of the axis of rotation. This effect helps slow the time-constant of the bike falling over once you have some speed. This is why it is more difficult to bike along at pedestrian speed than to pedal at normal bike-speed. The other effect of a gyroscope is: if you try to turn the axis of rotation one way you'll get a force in another direction. This effect, I think is meant when the references say that it doesn't impact bicycle riding (much). Rewolff ( talk) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article states that with the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment slavery was officially abolished in all of the United States. But that is in fact not true, since the Thirteenth Amendment allows slavery as a punishment for crime. Danvolodar ( talk) 10:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
My German teacher a native German told me this one. Are you sure that it is as misconcieved as stated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.76.21 ( talk) 11:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to jump in and say that the German public were, in fact, amused by this secondary meaning of "Ich bin ein Berliner". Near everytime I would get doughnuts in Germany, somebody would smirk and asked if I knew the story. The way the misconception is stated, it seems to indicate that there was no secondary meaning, and that Germans didn't find it amusing. I'll buy the idea the German he used was correct in the way he intended, but the external links from the article and everything I can find indicate that the secondary meaning was understood and laughed at. 142.162.19.202 ( talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm a German native speaker born in Frankfurt, now living in Berlin. It is true, that it would be more common to say "Ich bin Berliner", without the article, but it does not sound wrong to me to include it. It's also true, that "Ich bin ein Berliner" would be what one would say to identify oneself as a jelly doughnut. However, as the article correctly states, the word "Berliner" for jelly doughnut is common in most of Germany, excluding Berlin. I don't think the average guy who grew up in Berlin even knows that the word "Berliner" carries a second meaning outside of Berlin. That didn't stop anybody from having a small chucke over the anecdote. In Berlin Doughnuts are called "Pfannkuchen". Everywhere else a "Pfannkuchen" is just what you get when you translate the word literally - Pan Cake. -- 87.162.104.206 ( talk) 20:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The context of the phrase is misstated. See e.g. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkberliner.html so JFK was referring to himself, if only figuratively. 'All -- All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin. And, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."' Also, as a native speaker of german I can confirm the contribution from 87.162.104.206. 93.232.140.203 ( talk) 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It depends on where you are in Germany. As the article states, "Berliner" isn't used for a Jelly Doughnut in Berlin; however, it is used in other parts of Germany. To Berliners, the meaning was quite clear. In other areas of Germany, the double-meaning was present and it is a good joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.66.210 ( talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
When checking the cited source, it clearly states that, "Berliner" was not commonly used to refer to the doughnuts in the Berlin of the 1960s. As a German, I can verify that it is in fact a widely spread and very common word. I think most of the confusion arises from the fact that Germans nowadays think it's funny, but the Germans from that time didn't. I'd suggest changing "The word Berliner is not commonly used in Berlin to refer to the Berliner Pfannkuchen;" to "The word Berliner was not commonly used in Berlin at that time to refer to the Berliner Pfannkuchen;" (much to my own suprise as well btw ^^) -- 91.89.3.92 ( talk) 02:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Crane flies are often mistaken for male mosquitos. This is due to the commonly spread knowledge that male mosquitos are larger than females, and that male mosquitos do not bite humans. Male mosquitos are nectar feeders, and can be larger than females, but mosquito size is rarely larger than 16mm (0.6 in), compared to the crane fly whose average size ranges from 2 to 60 mm (0.08 to 2.4 in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StPuglo ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The current entry in the list says the following:
"Contrary to popular belief[161], there is no evidence that Jesus was born on December 25[162]. The Bible never claims a date of December 25, but may imply a date closer to September.[163]. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was likely chosen to coincide with the pagan holidays celebrating the Winter Solstice."
While the first couple of sentences are fine, the last sentence is itself a common misconception. The pagan holiday celebrated on December 25 was instituted by Roman emperor Aurelian (ruled 270-275 AD) as an attempt to unify the various pagan factions, due to his hostility with the Christians. The Christian use of December 25 was based on an old Jewish belief that the Prophets of Israel died on the same day as their conception or birth date. Early calculations (which were probably wrong) put Christ's death on March 25, hence it was believed that he was conceived on that day (now the Feast of the Annunciation, celebrating Gabriel's visit to Mary). Add 9 months to that day and you have December 25. Source: William J. Tighe, Associate Professor of History, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA as described in the article Calculating Christmas.
Bellde ( talk) 12:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I was indeed referring to Sol Invictus (see the source article I mentioned). Brumalia was indeed held on 25 Dec, as a celebration to Bacchus, and not the "sun worship" attributed by some to the Christian intent to take over the date. Lenaia was a minor holiday, and thus not likely a prime candidate for the early Christians to try and take over; Saturnalia was originally on 17 Dec and later made a longer celebration from 1-23 Dec, so close to 25 Dec, but not the same. The Sol Invictus wiki page refers to the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia as advocating for the pagan influence on the choice of 25 Dec, but that is an erroneous reading of the page (go check it out: [3].
The Sol Invictus article goes on to say that the view I expressed above is disputed by others (obviously true), including many Christians, but ignores the fact that the academically well-versed leader of over half of the Christians in the world (Catholics represent 50.99% of all Christians according to the CIA World Fact Book) does express this same view, so technically (although not necessarily actually) the Christian majority actually supports this view.
My suggestion for the misconception page would be to change the last sentence to something like "There are 2 primary schools of thought as to why December 25th was chosen to celebrate the birth of Christ: 1) it coincided with 9 months after an early calculation of Christ's conception being on March 25 (footnote: Calculating Christmas); and, 2) it served as a Christian replacement for the Roman holiday of Sol Invictus. Catholic Christians tend to express the former view whereas Protestant Christians the latter."
Bellde ( talk) 15:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to get all the verses out of the Gospels, however the bible, when taken at face value regarding the dates of John's conception, Jesus's conception, John's Birth, and then Jesus's brith comes out with a date of late December as the date of Jesus' birth. The first sentance regarding Jesus's birth says that there is no evidence, when there is some evidence that December 25th is the date when you put all the Jewish celebrations and 9 month gestation periods on a calendar. 155.13.48.128 ( talk) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I like your final solution. Bellde ( talk) 17:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
An alternate date of Christ's birth of April 17, 6 BC was proposed in the book "The Star of Bethlehem: The legacy of the magi" with further discussion on the author's website. This derived from planetary alignments that would trigger an astrological event significant to the magi. This would explain why no one in Judea noticed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheros3 ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that the single word "usually" needs to be taken out from the first bullet.
Completely pure water is not a good conductor of electricity.[146] In practical situations (such as bathtubs, flooded basements) water usually contains impurities (electrolytes) which allow for good electrical conduction.
In 'practical' situations (which I don't know what that means as many practical applications require pure water) or maybe better household applications, water ALWAYS has impurities. A perfectly pure water source would be lethal to humans due to Le Chatelier's principle as water becomes an aggressive solvent when pure.
This might clear up an misconception that in 'practical' applications there is sometimes 'pure water.' (It isn't even close in actuality.)
Merci. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.103.161 ( talk) 14:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a "citation needed" tag concerning Finnish and Polish emergency landing strips (what would be cit. 192). The following url http://alk.tiehallinto.fi/julkaisut/pdf3/lo_2010-18_lentokoneiden_varalaskupaikat.pdf (author: Liikennevirasto/Finnish transport agency) contains Finland's traffic authority's instructions about technical and other requirements for such a strip and should be sufficient evidence for their existence.
83.150.92.192 ( talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
//correction, after cit. 197
83.150.92.192 ( talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have heard repeatedly that while the US interstate highway system was not designed to have emergency landings, it was implemented by Eisenhower so that the Military could quickly transport personnel and equipment across the country as quick as possible, and that the overpasses on interstates are of a certain high so that missile transport trucks can pass under them. In addition, there are supposedly parallel highway access roads on most of the original overpasses so that in the even the overpasses were bombed, military transports could still continue along to the other side by using the access roads. Any validity to these claims? if so they should be added to the transport section
The common misconception is regarding the US interstate highway system being used for landing strips. While explaining this misconception the section illustrates that it is indeed true in some localities that highways have purposefully been designed as landing strips. In doing so it references Finland without a citation. This edit requests adds the citation requested but does not alter the section in any other way.
Please reconsider adding the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.27.102 ( talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"There is no evidence that Vikings wore horns on their helmets.[18][19]" seems to me too unexplanatory. I suggest two additions: firstly, that common Viking soldiers wore plain metal or leather helmets if any (this is backed up by the references already in place). Secondly, to my knowledge one part of the misconception of horns originates from the towns and villages that were raided by the "devillish" Vikings; especially religious accounts of these horrible and fierce attackers attribute them with horns as a sign that relates to devil. This may have lead to some imaginative artists depicting Vikings with both devil horns and also a tail in some occasions.
Unfortunately I'm not able to provide a good reference for the latter information, so I do not insist its addition unless somebody else can help with that. 88.195.167.85 ( talk) 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Are there in fact significant numbers of people who think that air is mostly oxygen? Unlike most of the other examples here, I've never heard anyone espouse this belief, and doubt that it is in fact a common misconception. 68.105.72.35 ( talk) 16:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What is the actual point of this article? Is it to eventually grow and become some kind of debunk page of misconceptions and (urban) legends, along the lines of Snopes? I know it might sound radical, but does it need to exist at all? It just seems like a massive "random trivia" or "the more you know" page to me. -- Popoi ( talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
In astronomy section, add the misconception that moon phases are caused by the earth's shadow:
PhiloHippus ( talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody please add the misconception about schizophrenia and multiple person(ality) disorder? Request it because i'm not natural english speaker and don't want to leave a mess of language here ;) -- 84.61.4.67 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC).
This TED video [4] exposes many misconceptions about Islam that could/should be added to the article.-- May Cause Dizziness ( talk) 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Multiple editors have been deleting sections of this article on the basis of there not being a source showing that it is a misconception or there not being a source showing that it is a common misconception. These deletions have, in some cases been made without regard to ongoing discussions on the talk page concerning those exact issues.
If the issue is whether the alleged common misconception is true or false, a good policy is that if the section has been in the article for a long time but unsourced or has a low quality source such as an opinion on a blog, remove any low-quality sources and add a citation needed tag. If it was just recently added, deleting it with a note that it was unsourced or poorly sourced is appropriate. Editors are reminded that "Citation Needed" notices, unless many months old, are not a reason to delete a section.
An open question s whether it is reasonable to expect a citation from a reliable source showing that something is a common misconception. A reliable source saying that X is false and Y is true is evidence that X is a misconception, but not evidence that X is a widely held misconception It is hard to see how anyone could know that for sure without conducting a public opinion poll. I would favor discussing proposed deletions based on how commonly held the belief is on the talk page and seeking consensus rather than simply deleting them out of hand. Guy Macon 22:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Could someone update this entry to distinguish between memory and attention span, as goldfish attention spans are actually quite short, and this is the origin of the misconception (wouldn't want to create a misconception the other way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.182 ( talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a common misconception that the Danish term Wienerbrød means that the pastry originates in Wienna (where they actually are called Kopenhagener Gebäck, meaning roughly Pastries from Copenhagen). The true origins for the Danish name was that the they were created by Austrian bakers in Copenhagen. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.88.105 ( talk) 10:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that the fact that the term turned up in this liste in it self proves that it is a misconception, common enough to make the misconception turn up on this list as "the truth". But who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.177.14 ( talk) 12:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that, although Napoleon was far from being a dwarf, he was pretty short. Notably so by European standards. As stated in the article his height at time-of-death was 1.686 meters (5'6.5"), which is shorter than the average person in all of the European countries listed on Wikipedia's "Human height" page, and is in fact shorter than the average Japanese man (who are a notably short people). I think it's a bit disingenuous to include "Napoleon wasn't especially short" on a page of common misconceptions, when measured against today's standards, he was in fact a notably short man. Perhaps when measured against the people of his own time, Napoleon was of average or perhaps even above average height, but if that's so the article should mention and cite sources to validate such an argument.
I'm not really sure how to sign this, but I am...
Jon Samuelson—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.29.24 ( talk) 10:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
According to
Average_height#History_of_human_height, the average height of French troops in the mid-nineteenth century was 1.65 m, making Napoleon slightly above average for the time. However, nobility tended to be taller due to better nutrition, so he may have been considered somewhat short among his peers. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.157.144.106 (
talk)
11:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
That's cool. I think the article should mention this fact, and link to it. I know that Wikipedia is a user-edited thing, an in theory if I think there should be a change, that I should just do it. But honestly, I think I'd just screw it up, so perhaps someone else should take care of it? -Jon Samuelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.29.24 ( talk) 11:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a common misconception even among adults that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted. According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed. Could this be a U.S.-only misconception? Evolution-scepticism is really a US phenomenon, and I doubt that most people in Europe, apart from small children, would ever claim this... 77.107.173.123 ( talk) 12:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This subject is already dealt with above. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
According to a german TV show (I do not remember which), this is incorrect. Fresh eggs are however easier to peel than older ones.
This requires a good reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.219.31 ( talk) 12:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on Sunday school classes I always thought men had less ribs than women. The first time I vocalized something about this unquestioned belief I instantly fell in the shame of my own misconceptions. I'm not alone There are too likely places to add this religious and health/biological tidbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Displague ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This is common enough that an article was written in 1995 about how many school children believe men have less ribs than women: http://discovermagazine.com/1995/sep/darwinsrib561/?searchterm=adam%20eve%20rib -- Skintigh ( talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This entry states that "Cattle are red-green color-blind." This is misleading (and might itself be deemed a common misconception). In fact, cattle are dichromatic (see Jacobs GH, Deegan JF 2nd, Neitz J., Vis Neurosci. 1998 May-Jun;15(3):581-4. "Photopigment basis for dichromatic color vision in cows, goats, and sheep."). While cattle might not be highly sensitive to the color red (which is what should be written to replace the quoted statement from the wikipedia article), it is not pertinent whether they are "red-green color blind" (deuteranopic) because the use of the cape in bullfighting does not rely on the distinction between the colors red and green. Furthermore, because cattle are not trichromatic (as are humans, where wild-type humans have three types of cone cells that detect red, green, and blue light), they don't have the opportunity to suffer "red-green color-blindness" as humans do. Red-green color-blindness can arise from mutation in either the red opsin or green opsin gene, leaving one less-able to distinguish the two colors. Because cattle don't have both a red opsin and green opsin gene, it is not possible for them to become clasically red-green color blind via genetic mutation.
The red color in the capes is used to hide the blood stains on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.28.224 ( talk) 10:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
129.2.131.170 ( talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Something to add to this section, if you examine the etymology of the word 'apple' in, I think, Old English, you find that the word was just a generic word for a piece of fruit, and did not specify any particular one. It was only later when its meaning changed but the Bible did not that the misconception arose that the forbidden fruit was an apple. Essentially it came about as a translation error in the Bible. Haven't bothered to track down the article I read this in, but etymological references should not be hard to find. 118.210.47.181 ( talk) 13:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Despite the decision in mid-2010 to remove this misconception, the following links (and there are tons more that can be found with a simple Google search) show that it is, in fact, a common misconception:
Not to intrude on the arguments of quality of sourcing, but I think most people know Fey said it instead of Palin. Most people attribute it to Palin on purpose to make her sound dumb, but intentional slander/misquotation is not the same thing as misconception. It belongs in the article about misquotations, but not here. (Just my two cents.) Spidey 104 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
how about an entry for the misconception that using aluminum pans or deodorant cause Alzheimer's or dementia? http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=99 i would say this is virtually as common as the "humans use only 10% of their brain" misconception (although not used quite as often in movies). Gobo2001us ( talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Under the evolution heading, the following clause exists:
"The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply doubt from mainstream science regarding its validity...."
A theorem might be valid, but a theory can only be strong or cogent. While this might be nitpicking, the logical import of the distinction is rather large. Thus, please replace the above clause with the following:
The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply doubt from mainstream science regarding its cogency...."
198.160.139.1 ( talk) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought this wording was actually weak. A hypothesis is an idea that fits known facts and observation, is testable, and is falsifiable. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, has been agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community, is the best explanation available, and often ties many different fields of science together into one explanation. For instance, evolution ties together what we know about inheritance, paleontology, DNA, microbiology, and even complex systems like populations and computer science. Gravity ties together classical mechanics, astronomy, relativity, etc. Germ theory of disease ties together observations in medicine, biology, sanitation, etc. -- Skintigh ( talk) 18:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who WKT, the author of the supporting text, is; but they seem to be confusing the lines between theory and law. It seems to make the case that they are essentially the same thing. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528971/scientific-theory This makes the whole paragraph suspect as it seems to be the whole argument. (SPZ)
There is dispute among scholars as to when the declaration is signed. Three of the signers themselves claimed it was signed on July 4th. "The" Declaration of Independence says July 4, 1776 on the back. It's possible the signers were lying or mistaken, and that the date was added by someone who didn't know any better, but I think there's enough doubt about this to warrant removing or at least modifying this to reflect that while it's pretty clear that not all the eventual signers were even present on July 4, we really don't know exactly when it actually was signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.72.35 ( talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
it might be appropriate, however, to clarify that it was printed and distributed on july 4th and 5th (hence the misconception), though not signed and entered into the congressional record until august 2nd. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html Gobo2001us ( talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"Although there are hair care products which are marketed as being able to repair split ends and damaged hair, there is no such cure. A good conditioner might prevent damage from occurring in the first place, but the only way to get rid of split ends after they appear is by a hair cut." Wow..I mean, I basically agree, but did someone look at the sources? What happened to reputation for fact checking? glamour, cbc,disabled-world.com?? Also, one source is even differing. I would call that baseless opinions at best. -- Echosmoke ( talk) 16:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
In a similar vein, no skin cream or other cosmetic product can "reverse aging", regardless of manufacturer claims. ArcheoPhyte ( talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Centrifugal Force," meaning a force which moves an object away from the center during rotation - for example, when you tie an apple to a string and twirl it around, the apple is being forced away from your finger by centrifugal force. Rather, inertia means that the apple will continue moving in a straight line unless it is held back by a centripetal force (the tension in the string). So if the string breaks, the apple will move away from the person's finger, but this is as a result of inertia, not centrifugal force. wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
I'm not an expert at wikipedia entries, but this would probably qualify as a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KC McGinnis ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The misconception that there is no centrifugal force is itself a misconception that is taught in schools. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force http://xkcd.com/123/ -- Skintigh ( talk) 19:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Spinoffs of the Space Program (Velcro, ...):
From http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html
Are Tang, Teflon, and Velcro NASA spinoffs? Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink's heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts' convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgalassi ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you know
Van Gogh did not invent
The Starry Night? There were starry nights going back as long as recorded human history and plenty of evidence they existed even before that. Also forests don't exist. If you examine closely you will rather see that they are in fact nothing but a collection of trees. I'm not convinced that if you look even closer that trees even exist, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Gripdamage (
talk)
16:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
In the secion "Biology," we see "Bats are not blind. While most bat species do use echolocation to augment their vision, all bats have eyes and are capable of sight.[124][125][126]"
It might be more accurate to say "all species of bat have eyes and are capable of sight" instead, since surely not *every* bat in the world is sighted.
76.19.66.41 ( talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe this edit is warranted, not only for accuracy but simply for consistancy in the sentence: "most bat species" is already in the first half the the sentence. Sexy plant lover ( talk) 05:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Nor was Copernicus. This is a VERY largely spread misconception about history. M.M. -- 82.120.133.118 ( talk) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Related with the discussion above --> Chapter 8 in: Ronald L. Numbers (ed.) Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). addresses the myth "That Galileo Was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism". In the concluding thoughts, it says:
In view of the available evidence, the most tenable position is that Galileo underwent an interrogation with the threat of torture but did not undergo actual torture or even territio realis. Although he remained under house arrest during the 1633 trial and for the subsequent nine years of his life, he never went to prison. We should keep in mind, however, that for 150 years after the trial the publicly available evidence indicated that Galileo had been imprisoned, and for 250 years the evidence indicated that he had been tortured. The myths of Galileo’s torture and imprisonment are thus genuine myths: ideas that are in fact false but once seemed true—and continue to be accepted as true by poorly educated persons and careless scholars. (p. 78)
Note: the first tree chapters of the book can be found here. -- Leinad-Z ( talk) 07:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you are confusing scientists. Galileo was threatened with torture by the church and imprisoned for life for his observations. Copernicus feared what would happen to him and waited until just before death until publishing.
However, Giordano Bruno was slowly burned to death by the church for his scientific work that suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe and the Sun is just one of many stars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno -- Skintigh ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} For entry under Section 5.2 Human Body and Health of the page "List of Common Misperceptions"
The entry reads:
Vaccines do not cause autism.[114] Current scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis of causation for more-common disorders such as autism.[115][116] There is, however, significant biological evidence showing that mutations in the genes related to glutathione, a critical antioxidant involved in the removal of mercury from the body, are found to be significantly more common in people with autism. [117][118][119][120][121][122][123]
My proposed change:
Vaccines do not cause autism.[114] However, according to the National Autism Association, and a legal case involving the CDC and Hannah Poling; thimerosal – a leading preservative used in multi-use vials for childhood vaccines does. This is a failure in the manufacturing process as opposed to a failure in the safety of vaccines. The additional cost associated with producing single-use vaccine vials that do not require preservatives such as thimerosal to guard against the introduction of bacteria from multiple needle punctures in a single vial will successfully neutralize the threat posed from heavy metal neurotoxicity in children.
Citing Websites:
“Deal in an Autism Case Fuels Debate on Vaccine” NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/us/08vaccine.html (Mar 8 2008: Jan 5 2011)
Thimerosal. National Autism Association http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php (Jan 5 2011)
“Vaccine Presentation in the USA: Economics of Prefilled Syringes versus Multidose Vials for Influenza Vaccination”. Medscape.com http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/733986 (Dec 15 2010: Jan 5 2010)
Reason for requested change:
The debate on Autism and vaccines is oversimplified in speech. Specifics were needed to convince the CDC during the hearing of Hannah Poling that there was merit to the claim of her parents. As such, the phrase "Vaccines do not cause Autism" is true, however, the claim that preservatives used in multi-dose vaccines are safe is false.
F0r4n4 (
talk)
03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
F0r4n4 ( talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Since these are fundamentally stories from the mythology of the United States of America and not "the Americas" it would be nice if this section was renamed to something more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.200.75 ( talk) 05:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
While not 100% accurate, extremely good longitudinal estimating methods were available and in use by China's naval exploration fleet led by Zhang He in the late 1300s. See here for more details. Explorations by European explorers including Columbus did not have this ability until far later. 70.137.130.116 ( talk) 13:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Under the heading "Human Body and Health," it states that there are more than 5 senses. While this is in fact correct, I would like to note that some of the other senses listed, such as relative temperature, pain, itching, and even the urge to urinate are all caused by touch. This seems fairly obvious to me. 98.16.208.55 ( talk) 06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you are confusing touch with physical contact. 111.69.248.240 ( talk) 11:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
They are sensed by different kinds of nerves. Ultimately it comes down to semantics, and biologically it makes at least as much sense to count them as different senses as it does to throw them into one category called "touch". 68.105.72.35 ( talk) 16:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Speaking about senses, you should also include the perception of polarization of light discovered by Heidinger, see Haidinger's_brush. The ability to detect polarization provides additional information that can be used to detect position of the Sun even if it is covered by coulds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.183.203.19 ( talk) 07:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few more that I would like to see added. I may add some of these myself, if time permits:
64.203.5.246 ( talk) 09:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
68.105.72.35 ( talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
arabic numerals where not actually an arab invention but rather invented by persian mathematicians in india, might consider adding an asia catagory to the history section -- RebAvi ( talk) 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If you do that, please add that actual arabic numerals differ from what we call arabic numerals in the west. 82.180.29.126 ( talk) 11:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
the fact that they are referred to as arabic numerals isn't enough to say it's a common misconception? RebAvi ( talk) 08:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Maitreya Buddha is not the second coming of Gautama Buddha, it is the fifth, as correctly stated here: [12] Pepa65 ( talk) 10:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy would be appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand.prabhakar.patil ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
While it may be true that the Inquisition did not execute any scientists due to their scientific beliefs, scientists have in fact been killed because of their belief in Mendelian genetics under Stalinism. While the excuse for their executions or imprisonments leading to death was that they were spies or sabotuers, as with other purges and show trials of the time the real reason was political, in this case their opposition to Lysenko's botanic theories.
182.239.133.206 ( talk) 13:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add an entry on the misconception that, in the US, if a suspect is not read his Miranda rights he is automatically freed? Seems a pretty common misconception to me, though, as with many such things, it may be difficult to source how common it is. In reality, such a failure only means that anything the suspect says afterwords (such as a confession) can be ruled inadmissible in court. All other evidence, including eyewitness, material evidence, etc. is still admissible and can lead to a conviction. - R. fiend ( talk) 14:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion of it being a "misconception" that Science and Religion are incompatible, relies on an equivocation about all three terms: Science, Religion, and compatibility.
For detailed discussion of this by Jerry Coyne, please reference this article. However, my basic point would be to ask that it be made abundantly clear: There IS and will remain an intractable incompatibility between scientific thinking/epistemology with regards to the falsifiability of hypotheses, standards of evidence, and the necessary modification of theories to accommodate/explain evidence
AND
Religious, dogmatic thinking that makes a virtue of faith (belief without evidence), and protects pre-existing beliefs at the expense of new knowledge.
Religious thinking and scientific thinking about "truth" in the world are fundamentally incompatible, and the common misconceptions page should be edited to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folboteur ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it be worth including a general comment along the lines that any word origin story that claims a word existing before the 20th century derives from an acronym is almost certainly false? Such etymologies are fairly common generally, even if individual ones (e.g. Fornication Under Consent of the King, For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge) may not be all that widely known. http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php is an article debunking a particular one (Ship High In Transit) that also mentions the commonality of such false etymologies and supports the contention that acronyms were not at all in wide use before World War II and were practically unknown prior to World War I (the ones it does cite from prior to that are, with the exception of "okay", clearly abbreviations rather than actual words... we read 1:00pm as "one pee em", not "one pum"). 68.105.72.35 ( talk) 17:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
An important point about misconceptions is that memories of misconceptions often fail to remember them as misconceptions. That is, telling someone that "it is a myth that the CRA caused the subprime mortgage" is likely to be remembered as "the CRA caused the subprime mortgage." 72.187.199.192 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC).
In the section on European history, the first bullet has two sentences on vomitoria. While both sentences are cited, the first sentence actually has two claims (that the Romans didn't vomit between meals and that they didn't build vomitoria to do so in) and only the second one is cited. Bastian964 ( talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
the following sentence was recently removed on the grounds that the editor did not see how it was a misconception: "* Purified water is not a good conductor of electricity. [13] However, in practical situations (such as tap water, bathtubs, flooded basements) water contains impurities ( electrolytes) which allow for good electrical conduction." The misconception is that people think that water is a good conductor, but it isn't. It is actually the impurities that are good conductors. 99.255.58.85 ( talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I propose we add a section to this article detailing the differences between thermal radiation and infrared. 74.68.114.111 ( talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Popular misconception answered on Answers.com and Yahoo Answers. Check answers 1, 2, 8 and 9 on Yahoo Answers, which are dead wrong, for helpful examples of the misconception. This popular misconception has been promoted by over-simplified classroom explanations of complex geological processes and may have been further popularized by a quote attributed to Henry Kissinger that “A diamond is a chunk of coal that is made good under pressure.”
Correct Answer:
Coal is an impure variety of carbon that is formed when decaying plant matter in a swamp or bog is shallowly buried beneath layers of sedimentary rock [ 1]. Small amounts of heat and pressure cause the plant matter to break down, liberating volatile compounds, however appreciable amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur are contained in coal in quantities depending on its grade [ 2].
Diamonds, on the other hand, form from relatively pure carbon under extreme pressure but, contrary to popular belief, relatively low temperatures [ 3, figure 4]. Diamonds may be formed by meteorite impact [ 4]or subduction of continental plates in continent-continent collisons[ 5] but these diamonds are typically microscopic and, in the case of continetal subduction, revert back to graphite before reaching the surface.
All of the diamonds that humans use are erupted from the deep mantle by exotic types of volcanoes known as kimberlites or lamproites [ 6]. The majority of these diamonds formed from carbon that was present in the mantle when the crust formed, but a small minority of eclogitic diamonds appear to have formed from carbon carried down on subducting oceanic plates, most likely as carbonate minerals or organic debris.
So coal forms in shallow sedimentary basins on the continents, whereas diamonds form 150 km below surface or deeper and there is no known mechanism for getting coal to that depth and back up again as a diamond. Moreover, coal forms from dead plants, and the youngest diamonds dated at present are a hundred million years older than the first plants to colonize the planet's surface [ 7, 8].
Editors may wish to condense this significantly. ArcheoPhyte ( talk) 01:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Under the Christianity heading,
"The Bible does not say Jesus fell to his knees under the weight or strain of carrying the cross and therefore the cross had to be carried by another. It has been assumed that Simon of Cyrene was told by soldiers to carry Jesus' cross because of Jesus being unable to continue due to weariness and exhaustion. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26). None of the accounts mention Jesus falling to his knees or being unable to carry the cross himself."
The misconception described in this entry is not "Jesus didn't fall to his knees" (as it sounds currently), it is "The Bible doesn't explicitly say that Jesus fell to his knees." Below is my suggested revision.
"The Bible does not explicitly give a reason why Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry the cross for Jesus. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers, but none of them specifically mention Jesus falling to his knees or that he was unable to carry the cross himself. (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26)."
Dcpelletier ( talk) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, gustatory neuroscience is still in contention about the presence of four or five types of taste. Umami is not widely accepted yet and is currently still in debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.236.82 ( talk) 01:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a "list of common misconceptions", but it is apparently list of facts. For example: one of the items on this list says "George Washington did not have wooden teeth." That is not a misconception. It should say "George Washington had wooden teeth". - JefiKnight ( talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"When a meteor lands on Earth (after which it is termed a meteorite), it is not usually hot. In fact, many are found with frost on them. A meteoroid's great speed during entry is enough to melt or vaporize its outermost layer, but any molten material will be quickly blown off (ablated), and the interior of the meteoroid does not have time to heat up because the hot rocks are poor conductors of heat.[47] Also, atmospheric drag can slow small meteoroids to terminal velocity by the time they hit the ground, giving the surface time to cool down.[48]"
I do not doubt the logic of this entry (or that it is a common misconception that meteorites are necessarily hot). But this is currently written as if freshly landed meteorites are always cool or cold. First, the sources listed are not clearly attributed to the correct information in the article. For example, source #47 is talking about the conductivity of rocks in the Earth's Crust ("meteor" or its derivatives are found nowhere in the article). And while this statement may pertain to a stony meteorite, it's probably not true of an iron meteorite. Source #48 is a book, which I don't have, but I trust that someone here might. Second, the only reference I can find to the statement that "many are found with frost on them" is in a forum discussion, author anonymous.
Quoted from the American Meteor Society's FAQ: "9. Are meteorites “glowing” hot when they reach the ground? Probably not. The ablation process, which occurs over the majority of the meteorite’s path, is a very efficient heat removal method, and was effectively copied for use during the early manned space flights for re-entry into the atmosphere. During the final free-fall portion of their flight, meteorites undergo very little frictional heating, and probably reach the ground at only slightly above ambient temperature. For the obvious reason, however, exact data on meteorite impact temperatures is rather scarce and prone to hearsay. Therefore, we are only able to give you an educated guess based upon our current knowledge of these events."
I believe the language in this entry should be softened to match what the AMS FAQ actually says, which is that they are not necessary hot. If no one objects, I can do this ASAP. (Unless some other sources to the contrary are found in the Bad Astronomy book?)
As a note: The discussion on this entry is in Archive #6 from 2009. It pertains to adding sources, which I find ironic in this sort of article (isn't the lack of sources how these misconceptions get started in the first place?) Will.i.am ( talk) 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
apparently some people believe this? is it common? http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.145.40 ( talk) 13:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There are clearly some common misconceptions when it comes to Galileo being held up as an example of science vs. religion. At least in US schools that was always the spin put on his story. 173.59.121.90 ( talk) 07:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a typo in the Human body and health section. The item talking about the brain continuing to create neurons. It says "we no know" when it should read "we now know." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.187.181.169 ( talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Could we possibly list the myth about the Chevy Nova failing in whatever Spanish countries due to "Nova" supposedly translating as "no go" (no va)? I've had quite a few Spanish, history, and sociology teachers mention this bogus story as fact, and it's always annoyed me. Some guy ( talk) 14:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a commonly told summer camp prank that if you dip a sleeping person's hand in warm water, they will wet their bed. This myth was tested and debunked by the MythBusters show (2009 season, series episode #136 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282009_season%29#Camp_Prank).
Do others think this qualifies as a common misconception?
Jhyrman ( talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This section is wildly off-base. None of the three references it cites state that it is a "misconception" that the numbered centuries and millennia begin in years ending in "1." And if it is a misconception, someone better send a memo to the rest of Wikipedia: 20th century, 2nd millennium, etc. This smells of original research and agenda-advancement via editing. Every authority on timekeeping and calendars I have ever consulted has been perfectly clear on the fact that, under the Gregorian calendar, the 20th century ran from 1901-2000. Will any editor step forward and produce an authority that says otherwise? (ISO 8601 doesn't even define centuries, so no soap there.)
You can say that the Gregorian calendar is "only a convention, man," to which the only possible response is yes--and so what? All definitions are conventional. You might as well say that it's a popular "misconception" that this comment was written in the year 2011. -- 158.111.5.34 ( talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Strongly support removal. The section as currently included in the page is at least misleading and arguably wrong. The existence of some alternative system that nobody actually uses (if you disagree, please provide cites showing this usage to be widespread, not merely showing that such a system does exist) does not mean that the system that everybody actually DOES use is now invalid. In the Gregorian calendar new decades/centuries/millenia do in fact start on years ending in 1, not years ending in zero. Ptorquemada ( talk) 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Under the Science and Religion section, the statement beginning "No scientist ever lost his life because of his scientific views..." is inaccurate. It may be true that Bruno's support for Copernicanism was not the principle reason for his execution, or even a contributing one. However, one of the principle charges against Bruno was his heretical belief in the plurality of worlds (see the Wikipedia entry for Giordano Bruno and references therein). Bruno held that the sun was merely one of many stars, the Earth but one of many planets and possibly that humans were but one of many forms of intelligent life. Bruno offered a partial recantation, eventually appealing to the Pope, but the head Inquisitor demanded a full recantation and found him guilty of heresy when he refused.
Bruno's religious beliefs and his apparently near limitless capacity for p*ssing off powerful political figures certainly were major factors in his fiery doom, but his scientific views were a contributing factor.
This statement is at best Controversy, not Misconception and should be relocated or removed. ArcheoPhyte ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
* Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers. * Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation. * Holding erroneous opinions about Christ. * Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass. * Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity. * Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes. * Dealing in magics and divination. * Denying the Virginity of Mary.
I hope this helps. ArcheoPhyte ( talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think saying that things that burn "flare" in pure oxygen rather than "explode" is largely a matter of semantics and the difference, if any, is going to be lost on the typical observer. I don't see that the sentence in question really adds anything anyway. Ptorquemada ( talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In addition "five times less oxygen" is clumsy and inaccurate. This should be edited to state "air has 1/5th the oxygen".-- 207.106.239.81 ( talk) 21:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that this entry be deleted, because I don't see any evidence for there being a misconception that is common. Ccrrccrr ( talk) 03:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that this paragraph is written by the point of view of the christian religion it seems to ignore the others. -- SoliDreamer ( talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Science/Astronomy subsection the article tells me that "It is a common misconception that seasons are caused by the Earth being closer to the Sun in the summer than in the winter." I'm trying to figure out how ignorant you would have to be and who you would be to believe that? To anyone who knows that the seasons are at opposite times in the northern and southern hemispheres (true for at least everyone I know in Australia), that alleged belief would make no sense at all. Does anyone really believe that? Who are these dumb people? HiLo48 ( talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems that some distinction should be made between misconceptions (that people almost always stop believing when presented with evidence to the contrary) and controversies (where people usually refute evidence against their position with an argument of some sort) another way to state this would be that it is only a misconception if people believe it because they never heard otherwise if people have heard the evidence against their position and continue to believe it (however wrong that position might be)then it is a controversy or a fringe belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.83.19 ( talk) 18:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely these belong in List of misquotations, instead ?
A beneficial side-effect of moving those would be to lose List_of_common_misconceptions#United_States_politics in its entirety - perhaps it was given undue weight in a global context, anyway - I guess many other countries mis-quote their politicians ? -- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
What is a common misconception and what is not? Who has decided this and based on what criteria ? Gnevin ( talk) 11:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with the assertion that sharks can actually suffer from cancer, it would seem that it is a rare occurrence. I disagree with the final statement that "current data do not allow any speculation about the incidence of tumors in these fishes." There is a great deal of research being conducted in this field, and there is some evidence to imply that sharks show impressive resistance to various diseases, including cancer. [7] [8]
The myth that eating shark cartilage will prevent cancer is certainly harmful, and I am glad that it makes an appearance in this article. However, I think it should be added that shark cancer resistance is an exciting developing field for disease research, that may lead to new cancer treatments in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.8.49 ( talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I archived all closed or resolved threads extremely early, because the page was simply unmanageable. If I archived something with ongoing discussion by accident, please pull it back in from archive 12 manually. If someone could go through and close out any remaining queries we have on the page, so we can take care of a few more as well, that would be fantastic. We still have about 100 open requests. Jess talk| edits 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Edit request from Dcpelletier, 7 January 2011
Under the Christianity heading,
"The Bible does not say Jesus fell to his knees under the weight or strain of carrying the cross and therefore the cross had to be carried by another. It has been assumed that Simon of Cyrene was told by soldiers to carry Jesus' cross because of Jesus being unable to continue due to weariness and exhaustion. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26). None of the accounts mention Jesus falling to his knees or being unable to carry the cross himself."
In response to my edit which would make the above entry conform to the format of the rest of the page, I received:
Declined - Your suggested revision does not address a common misconception. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
If my edit did not address a common misconception, the original bullet point absolutely did not either, so I would like to request that it be removed. As written, it is wordy, redundant, vague (is he talking about a belief about an event (Jesus falling) or a text (Wording in the Bible)?) -- AND, apparently, does not address a common misconception, so...
Remove the above quotation from the article.
Dcpelletier ( talk) 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this. We need to remove the items that are not substantiated as having the status of "common misconception". And we need to apply a high threshold to the "common", they need to be common in an absolute sense, not common within some baroque expert field. -- dab (𒁳) 21:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think editors are misunderstanding the "common" aspect of this article; we don't need an exhaustive list of every imaginable false belief listed here. See also WP:SIZE. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I tried adding a brief entry under the Science heading reading:
(First, astonishing as this may be -- it certainly was to me when I read about it -- please suspend your disbelief long enough to read the citations above, so that you can discover that this is, in fact, a misconception. Unfortunately, the best article is the one in the New Yorker, and the full text of that article is not available online except to subscribers.)
When I added this, User:Ohnoitsjamie deleted it and told me, "the article is too big as it is and doesn't need to list every misconception that exists. If you can get any kind of consensus on the talk page for it's inclusion, I'll leave it be." (Is it appropriate for one person to unilaterally deem an article too large and delete any further additions?) In any case, he apparently wants something like a poll of this page's followers to satisfy him that this is a common enough idea to merit inclusion in this article.
So, please reply to this comment to indicate whether you agree that the idea that "published scientific findings are reproducible" is commonly believed. Thank you. StepsTogether ( talk) 23:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A problem with the wording in the quote at the top of this section: The common misconception is listed as being that results should be reproducible, where as the sources instead refute the idea that results are reproducible. I believe that it is true that results should be reproducible and it is also true that many are not. Glossing over that distinction is like glossing over the distinction between saying "everything in Wikipedia should be based on reputable sources" and saying "everything in Wikipedia is based on reputable sources". I trust the editors reading this talk page understand the difference between those two! Ccrrccrr ( talk) 01:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is protected, so I can't edit it.
In the human body section, add a point for the myth that alcohol kills brain cells. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1103162109.html http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/10-brain-myths9.htm
In the physics section it says "Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle". But there are gyroscopic forces, and they do help balance the bicycle, so how is this a misconception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.64.192 ( talk) 18:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
unprotect to propose deletion. This article is nothing but a collection of vaguely related factoids, and is not encyclopedic. WP:DIRECTORY. Also it's US-centric, Template:Globalize/USA, assuming American tropes are universal and but especially identifying a Korean trope with a foreign tone. It's basically a gripe-list for American former middle-school students. 216.145.107.181 ( talk) 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this item needs to be clarified or deleted. "Because black hole formation is explosive, the object would lose a certain amount of its energy in the process, which, according to the mass–energy equivalence, means that a black hole would be of lower mass than the parent object, and actually have a weaker gravitational pull." A differentiation between the gravity within the black hole's event horizon and the gravity outside of the horizon should be made. If the above sentence were true for both places it wouldn't make sense why light can't escape the "lower" gravitational pull of the black hole when it could escape the "higher" gravitational pull of the star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmieman ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the idea of black holes being cosmic vacuum cleaners is that once things get trapped below the event horizon they don't get out (baring a very small bit of hawking radiation), where as matter approaching a star is repelled by the radiation pressure from the light (or more significantly for things like comets where there is a back pressure from water vaporising) and these effects do not exist for a black hole, there is simply gravity. Further more matter entering a star might well simply be blasted out as solar wind another effect not present with matter entering a black hole, although emission of x-ray frequency radio is fairly common from accretion disks. It seems the misconception is that black holes have a stronger asymptotic gravity field than the star they were formed from, rather then a serious dispute about their ability to "suck" stuff out of space. comment added by YetanotherDave ( talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
Various sources state that pyramids being built by slaves is a myth started a long time ago. 71.174.190.191 ( talk) 01:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
"This notion of a vast slave class in Egypt originated in Judeo-Christian tradition and has been popularized by Hollywood productions like Cecil B. De Mille’s The Ten Commandments, in which a captive people labor in the scorching sun beneath the whips of pharaoh’s overseers. But graffiti from inside the Giza monuments themselves have long suggested something very different." http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids
pedrorui Pedrorui ( talk) 14:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, someone with editing privileges should add this. I've always thought of it as a classic example of ubiquitous erroneous knowledge. 98.111.202.57 ( talk) 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
While I doubt anyone but zealous fundamentalist would doubt this, you should also mention that there is also no evidence that Jesus was resurrected on the Vernal Equinox either and that a great many of the symbols that are devoted to both of these holidays in reality have nothing to do with anything Christian at all.
The early church had to compete for worshippers with the pagan religions which were, quite frankly, a lot more entertaining for the majority of the population. Go to church and listen to someone drone on in a language you don't understand (Latin) or go out to the woods, get drunk, get naked and dance around a bon fire? See the problem... And much to the horror of the many of the priests, church fathers, etc. at the time, many people were doing BOTH.
The solution was to have the Christian holidays occur on the same days as the pagan holidays and in order to make the local populations comfortable with this new and unusual religion, it dressed itself up in the same symbolism.
Instead of celebrating midwinter and the return of the solar diety, we celebrate the birth of the baby Jesus.
Popular Christmas symbols: Tree, Holly, Mistletoe are all of pagan origin. - The prophet Jermiah condems Jews in the Old Testment for cutting down trees and bringing them into their houses - Quoting "Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."
Furthermore, during the Roman celebration of the feast of Saturnalia, pagans did decorate their houses with clippings of evergreen shrubs. They also decorated living trees with bits of metal and replicas of their God, Bacchus. Tertullian (circa 160 - 230), an early Christian leader and a prolific writer, complained that too many fellow-Christians had copied the Pagan practice of adorning their houses with lamps and with wreathes of laurel at Christmas time. He also complains about many of the early Christians participating in both Christian and pagan activities.
Mistletoe was considered magical for its ability to remain green when the rest of the tree was dormant. The custom of kissing under a branch of mistletoe hails from Norse pagan religion. Because the mistletoe was used to both kill and then resurrect the son of a Norse goddess, she blessed it so that anyone standing under it was entitle to love and protection.
Instead of celebrating spring the resurrection of some harvest diety, we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.
Familiar easter symbols like the egg, rabbit, and lily. Since spring is a time of growth and promise, fertility symbols have always been prominent. Anyone who has ever heard the phrase "breeding like rabbits" doesn't need to have the rabbit explained any futher. And the egg should be equally obvious. Easter lily was associated with fertility because of its similiarity in appearance to a certain male appendage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.81.135 ( talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless there are additional topics added to this section, it would be more appropriately titled "United States Law" recognizing its content as exclusive much the same as the preceding section is titled "United States politics" to reflect its exclusive content. 99.241.16.65 ( talk) 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} In the Physics section, please add "In a vacuum, an object, such as a spaceship does not need propulsion to keep on moving. That is because, according to Newton's Law, the law of Inertia states that an object will keep moving or or stay at rest unless an external force is apply, by which in space there are barely any air friction." Please make changes and edits accordingly, since I am not very good at writing. A good source would be Newton's book "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" or a blog explaining it http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/sciencefordessert/2011/01/08/propulsion-in-a-vacuum/
128.205.71.150 ( talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
First, before renaming the article, consensus should have been sought first. Second, I now have 2 talk pages showing up on my watchlist. Can someone fix this? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
Requested move/dated}}
List of notable misconceptions →
List of notable misconceptions —
Common is totally undefined whole notable is a well defined concept both on wiki and off it
Gnevin (
talk)
21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Cold is the absence of heat and hence cannot radiate any more than darkness (which is the absence of light). Cold objects (above absolute zero) in fact radiate heat ( blackbody radiation), just less so than warm objects. The illusion of cold 'radiation' derives from the cooling of air around cold objects as heat seeps into them. In a vacuum, you would nor feel any such 'radiation' of cold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.144.106 ( talk) 11:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone make "fan death" into a link to the main article? 216.243.36.162 ( talk) 01:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Fan death is not really a misconception the way it is stated here. There are 2 misconceptions about fan death: how it happens and that fan death is a myth. Fan death is not a myth according to the US EPA. http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/pdf/EHEguide_final.pdf page 37 section 4.2.2 explains fan death and how and it happens. JaySee55 ( talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)JaySee55