Most Persistent Myths: Debunking the Loch Ness Monster

[SpaceTiger]

How exactly do we determine when all things are equal? When are things ever so simple that this really applies?

This is basically the same perfectionist fallacy I mentioned before. Things are never exactly equal, but that doesn't mean one can't make an educated judgement.

It seems to me that this gets into [subjective] interpretations of the evidence, which effectively reduces Occams Razor to circular logic.

The number of parameters to a model is generally not a subjective thing. There are certainly cases in which the definition of "simplicity" is ambiguous, but not when you're specifically parameterizing a physical law (as in, say, dark matter or dark energy).

 

[Pengwuino]

" Einstien got bad grades in school even in arithmetic"
~Another untrue story, records from his scools in germany indicate that he was a good student only liked to rebel againsed the athoritating teaching style in germany at that time

An extension of that is "Einstein was a bad mathematician". My prof said it nicely today "You fail one test and your dogged for life!"

 

[Adam Y.]

1. god exists
2. people only use 10 percent of their brain
3. Earth is flat (oh yeah, those exist: www.flat-earth.org )
4. string "theory"

Actually the Columbus story is the myth. My history teacher taught me that a lot of people during that time period thought the Earth was round. The only reason why Columbus was rejected because they thought it was too big for him to circumnavigate.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Actually the Columbus story is the myth. My history teacher taught me that a lot of people during that time period thought the Earth was round. The only reason why Columbus was rejected because they thought it was too big for him to circumnavigate.

That may be true but there definitely were people who believed that the Earth was flat even as late as this last century.

 

[russ_watters]

Ummmm. if you search the forums you will find a disscussion about his topic which leads to the conclusion that Hot water freezes faster then cold...

Well, the real answer is "it depends" (but isn't it always?).

"Einstein was a bad mathematician".

Another Einstein myth:

Einstein was "just" a patent clerk. Actually, he was a technical assistant. And oh, by the way, that was mostly just a way to pay for his phd/support himself while getting his phd.

That's related to the 'Einstein's ideas were not well received' myth.

Most of the Einstein myths exist to paint the picture of an average Joe (and if Einstein was just an average guy, maybe I could be the next Einstein...).

 

[matthyaouw]

Actually the Columbus story is the myth. My history teacher taught me that a lot of people during that time period thought the Earth was round. The only reason why Columbus was rejected because they thought it was too big for him to circumnavigate.

I have indeed heard that the first references to people thinking the world was flat in Columbus' time appeared in the 1800s, when writers were attempting to glorify the fellow.

 

[derekmohammed]

Glass _is not_ a liquid. We're in the myths, thread, yes? Sorry to say it, but you got suckered.

- Warren

Alright let us settle this once and for all!

The deifinition of a solid is that it has a definite cyrstal lattice structure. When Glass (only for man made glass not natural glass ie: Quartz ect...)is made the Si02 (and other impurites or additives) do not have time to form a crystal lattice structure due to the fast cooling and compression (ie the forging of the glass), thus the atoms are in a gumble (used for lack of better terms). Therefore man-made glass is not a solid.

If we take another liquid and apply a force perpendicular to the surface. Let us use the example of miniscus lines in a gradulated cylinder containing water in it. The miniscus lines are from the force of gravity perpendicular to the surface. If we had glass sitting in a gradulated cylinder for 100's of years you would see the same kind of miniscus lines. Thus could be considered a liquid if you consider that it has a VERY VERY HIGH viscosity.

So in closing I will quote Russ_waters:

Well, the real answer is "it depends" (but isn't it always?).

It depends on if you want to consider it a solid or not.
Derek Mohammed

 

[brewnog]

No Derek, sorry.

The answer is "it depends". The difference between considering glass as a solid or a liquid merely depends on the language you're using for your descriptions. Using some terminology, you are justified in considering it as a viscous liquid, using others, you are justified in classing glass as an amorphous solid. The ambeguity of definitions is to blame here.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html

The difference is not technical, it is semantic. (By the way, the often quoted thing about old church windows has been shown to be part of the myth, - the glass is thicker at the bottom due to the manufacturing process rather than any transient viscous flow).

 

[russ_watters]

The deifinition of a solid is that it has a definite cyrstal lattice structure.

Except that that isn't the definition of a solid: "A substance having a definite shape and volume; one that is neither liquid nor gaseous."

Amorphous solids are still solids, but they are a special type... called "glasses". And as it turns out, glass isn't the only glass.

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/www.uAlberta.ca/~bderksen/florin.html

And oy, my own quote comming back to me, used incorrectly. Dang, I gots ta stop bein' so eloquent.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Myth I could do without:

1. Fact means true, theory means false.

 

[chroot]

According to Derek, graphite must be a liquid. Shut up, Derek.

- Warren

 

[setAI]

"GMO/GME foodstuffs are dangerous- everything should be organic"

plasma cosmology: "it is absurd to believe that gravity is the dominant force at galactic scales when electromagnetism is 10^39 times as strong"

"black holes do not exist"

"The Mind-Body Problem"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is basically the same perfectionist fallacy I mentioned before. Things are never exactly equal, but that doesn't mean one can't make an educated judgement.

The number of parameters to a model is generally not a subjective thing. There are certainly cases in which the definition of "simplicity" is ambiguous, but not when you're specifically parameterizing a physical law (as in, say, dark matter or dark energy).

By subjective I meant in regards to significance. Some predictions may be highly compelling and considered by some people to be strong evidence, and others not. There may be key indicators that are "judged" to favor one theory over the other, regardless of the number of variables. So it seems to me that in the case of anything so complex as a TOE, or a theory to explain DE, I would expect camps to form along various lines, least of which by a head count of the variables, less in the extreme of course. If the 10 variables from theory X theory cannot be shown to reduce to the nine of theory Y, I don't see how even in the abstract we can conclude that Y is more likely true. This notion completely ignores why theory X requires the additional variable - say for example, the Cosmological Constant.

 

[SpaceTiger]

By subjective I meant in regards to significance. Some predictions may be highly compelling and considered by some people to be strong evidence, and others not.

This is always part of the story, but seldom the whole thing...

There may be key indicators that are "judged" to favor one theory over the other, regardless of the number of variables. So it seems to me that in the case of anything so complex as a TOE, or a theory to explain DE, I would expect camps to form along various lines, least of which by a head count of the variables

Last week I went to a talk (at Princeton, in case you question the applicability) in which the speaker was proposing a new model of dark energy that relied on unobserved particles with a weird equation of state. One of the first questions asked by one of the professors was, "How many new particles are you proposing?" The professor was basically trying to gauge the "simplicity" of the model and determine the number of free parameters. Further along in the talk, it became clear that not only did he have to introduce two new particles, but he also had to put them in special conditions (another free parameter). Given that he had to make all of these seemingly arbitrary assumptions, there was sort of a group consensus that his model was not likely to be the solution. Even the speaker himself admitted to me afterwards that he felt his theory was unlikely to be correct, but that he felt he had helped develop dark energy theory in the process of his explorations. None of the professors would have said that his model was flat out "untrue" based on these intuitive beliefs, but it was clear that little effort would be put into pursuing its specific predictions further.

I will agree, however, that Occam's Razor can be a rather elusive beast and it's sometimes very difficult to pinpoint precisely in educated scientific discourse. I assure you, however, that it's there.

If the 10 variables from theory X theory cannot be shown to reduce to the nine of theory Y, I don't see how even in the abstract we can conclude that Y is more likely true. This notion completely ignores why theory X requires the additional variable - say for example, the Cosmological Constant.

Rarely do new scientific theories require 9 or 10 completely arbitrary variables. More like one, two, or three, most of the time. It seems intuitively obvious to me that a theory which can explain the acceleration of the universe with one new particle, force, or term in an equation would be more plausible than one that can do it with two or three. Maybe this is based on experiences with past scientific results or maybe it's just some common sense notion that I'm struggling to put into words, but I'm a bit baffled by your unwillingness to agree. Sure, there are other things that go into a judgement of a theory, including its similarity to previously observed phenomena, its aesthetic appeal, and its ability to explain other seemingly unrelated phenomena (though I would argue this last one is just an extension of Occam's Razor to a larger space), but the idea is definitely there.

 

[russ_watters]

"GMO/GME foodstuffs are dangerous- everything should be organic"

That's a good one - I can't believe I forgot it (we don't see it all that much here).

I once did a debate on the subject (I was pro) and my prof couldn't even fathom why there would be a debate. It was actually kinda funny - before we debated each other, we had to convince the prof that the debate was even worth having (really, its not...).

 

[brewnog]

"Technically, the internal combustion engine shouldn't work"


"Technically, the bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly"

Anyone?

 

[Poop-Loops]

Well, I do martial arts, so my most hated myth is anything that involves ki/chi/qi. Things like "death touches" or "ki blasts". Yes, there is a HUGE amount of people who actually believe in that. There *could* possibly be a Ki force in the body or whatever, but I've never seen it applied to a combat situation.

PL

 

[Pengwuino]

Hey russ, i thought Einstein never got a phD until after his greater discoveries. My prof also mentioned something... and he said something... and ended his sentence with "we forgot to give him a phd"... not sure what hte first part of the sentence was though but since we were talken about Einstein, i assume he was saying that Einstein never got a phD but had received hte nobel prize.

 

[Pengwuino]

"GMO/GME foodstuffs are dangerous- everything should be organic"

Thats one that pisses me off... especially when i use to not be in charge of what i ate lol. My dad thinks anything organic is good and healthy (oh yah and he smokes cigarettes) . I hate people who think anything made in a factory (or similiar) or something not found in nature is bad for you and everything natural is good. I mean come on, poison ivy is natural but you don't see me making a bacon, poison ivy, and tomato sandwhich.

 

[Smurf]

3. Earth is flat (oh yeah, those exist: www.flat-earth.org )

Okay, that has to be a joke site. I mean, LOOK:

that all assertions are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true false and meaningless in some sense.

It hurts to believe people are so stupid.

 

[cronxeh]

I see you've never left Canada, eh?

 

[russ_watters]

Hey russ, i thought Einstein never got a phD until after his greater discoveries. My prof also mentioned something... and he said something... and ended his sentence with "we forgot to give him a phd"... not sure what hte first part of the sentence was though but since we were talken about Einstein, i assume he was saying that Einstein never got a phD but had received hte nobel prize.

He got a phd in the same year he released his largest cluster of papers: 1905.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Albert Einstein
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Einstein.html

 

[Humber]

The one about us using only 10% of our brains. Scientologists make this claim...

 

[Mk]

That my mom is fat.

 

[somasimple]

Electricity is carried along nerves. (Myth since the battle Volta/Galvani)

 

[moose]

That my mom is fat.

BWAHAHAHA -Math is completely useless

 

[RunDMC]

GMO dangers - myth?

(GMO/GME food) -- That's a good one - I can't believe I forgot it (we don't see it all that much here).
I once did a debate on the subject (I was pro) and my prof couldn't even fathom why there would be a debate. It was actually kinda funny - before we debated each other, we had to convince the prof that the debate was even worth having (really, its not...).

OK, GMO/GME foods are not dangerous/poisonous. Anyone can see that.

BUT: The threat to balanced ecology MIGHT be a risk, though... and let's also not forget that it is hard to avoid patent fees when a GMO cross pollinates into your crops, so there is a financial, business risk too.

Monsanto are working on seeds which are more robust than their natural cousins, but are not viable for germination. Gee, I can't see any risks there!

 

[Human Being]

OK, GMO/GME foods are not dangerous/poisonous. Anyone can see that.

BUT: The threat to balanced ecology MIGHT be a risk, though... and let's also not forget that it is hard to avoid patent fees when a GMO cross pollinates into your crops, so there is a financial, business risk too.

Monsanto are working on seeds which are more robust than their natural cousins, but are not viable for germination. Gee, I can't see any risks there!

I disagree with your 'not dangerous/poisonous' GMO/GME opinion.

Here's but a sample of my own pet list of most persistent myths:

Comets are "dirty snowballs"
Pearl Harbor was a surprise
Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK
Timothy McVeigh acted alone
Osama Bin Laden planned 911
Iraq had or was getting WMD

I don't need "definitive proof" to *know* that those are myths!
There's plenty of "evidence" that indicates we are being lied to.

 

[Bladibla]

'String theory *is* the ultimate theory'

More like ultimate BS to me