Most Persistent Myths: Debunking the Loch Ness Monster

[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

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

people understand string theory and can declare it's wrong, Loop Quantum Gravity too for that matter

quantum mechanics makes sense when it states that if nobody is there to hear a tree fall in the woods, you can't be certain it will make a sound

God doesn't exist

the universe has a purpose for existing without the use of a belief to explain it

humans are intelligent -> as Frank Zappa would say, "People say that the universe is mostly composed of Hydrogen, but I disagree, it's mostly composed of stupidity."

crop circles are made by aliens

everything can be reduced to pure physics

a premptive attack is justified

there is no such thing as global warming

we don't need to take care of our planet, it can clense itself

the atkins diet is healthy

the space program doesn't do us any good

there is no use in dabbling in abstract and non-practical math

we should fight for our country because it's our duty, and duty, legacy, and pride are the most important things

being remembered makes a difference

flight 93 wasn't shot down by an american fighter, flight 77 crashed into the pentagon and punctured through 18 feet of steel reinforced concrete

JFK wasn't murdered by the cia, and the cia isn't a corrupt organization that was founded mainly by ivy league fraternities like "Skull and Bones" and nazis

The federal reserve isn't run by private interests, and isn't mediated by the bank of England which is also not run by private interests, which in turn is not told what to do by the world bank and IMF which aren't run by private interests

 

[Dmitri]

I can't believe this, 5 pages of myths and nobody mentioned the myth that Apollo missions were staged in a desert. I think there is even a “documentary” movie proving that it was staged.

 

[No-where-man]

Ball lightning does not exist.
John Crapper invented the toilet. [He was an engineer who designed the London sewer system. Bob Plopper invented the toilet. ]
All UFO's can be explained as trivial errors in perception, lies, etc.
Occams Razor says that the simplest answer is always correct.
Occams Razor is a definitive test of concept.
Absence of [hard] evidence is evidence of absence.
We know all that we ever will know: i.e. Any claim that can't be explained must be false.
Observations that support the popular paradigm are true, those that do not are false.
Religion and science are mutually exclusive.
God does not exist.

Actually,people will never understand that God doesn't exist.Chop off their arms,destroy the will to live and they will still believe there is God-that's how stupid they are?
God doesn't exist-if he existed,he would already come to Earth and prove that he is God creating things that laws of physics can't allow in any possible situation,like make bigger and brighter sun and yet make people don't get blind and that Earth doesn't burn out.I can say that I'm God in human form,and people will know that I'm a mere human who went nuts-but they believe in a book that says that God exists(Bible)?How stupid they can be?
From how many mistakes they have to learn that God doesn't exist?
First it was like this:storms are gods,than we have today universe was created by God,than let's suppose we find out and prove what is that "lifeforce" that created the universe(actually started the chain reaction-I believe they've already did it in accelerators),and than what?The point is more and more,further and further man discovers,explaijns and proves there is less and less proof for God's existence.

 

[Theoretician]

At what point did this thread turn into: "state some things that in which you personally don't believe but cannot prove either way"?

God (whether He exists or not) should surely not be mentioned on this thread.

 

[Theoretician]

everything can be reduced to pure physics

May I ask you to explain why everything (in the physical domain) cannot be reduced to pure physics?

 

[Plastic Photon]

One thing that pisses me off are people trying to sound funny when they say we need to ban dihydrate oxide or monoxide. Get a life! Now...

Colombus thought he arrived in India.
Nero burnt Rome (disputable)
NASA still goes to the moon (courtesy of my friend)
Dude, do we like really exist.
Marijuana is bad for you therefore it is illegal.
Atlantis is real, chupacabra, etc...
Half your shoe size = your penis size. NOO!O!

 

[Human Being]

At what point did this thread turn into: "state some things that in which you personally don't believe but cannot prove either way"?
God (whether He exists or not) should surely not be mentioned on this thread.

I agree that God shouldn't be entering this discussion. Regarding your question - although I could go back and try to name the first post that matches your description of what this thread has turned into, I know that isn't what you really want to know. (Post #2) So let me bring up a point to at least "validate" my own post in this thread, since it probably matches your description but couldn't possibly be the first post to do so.

Which myths, theories or conspiricies most annoy you? The kind where no matter how many times you fully debunk them, they just keep coming back again and again, and will probably never go away, despite how obvious it is that they cannat be true.

While I can't honestly say that I myself have gone to the lengths of multiple full debunkings regarding each of my own stated most annoying myths, theories or conspiacies, I can say that since we may never "know" the exact details of certain "things", I believe that enough has been said by others before me to falsify the official details as "published" by those in the position to do so.

Theoretician, I suppose that with respect to matthyaouw's exact inquiry, your question is quite appropriate. I got into this thread after dozens of people, so I decided to express my personal list as it would present another direction in which matthyaouw's inquiry could be explored. When a society is being misled on a massive scale regarding "things" which have a major impact on its very future, is mere falsification of the official position on said "things" enough to "declare" them a myth, theory, or conspiracy?

Each of those three terms carries a negative connotation which by default "colors" anything legitimately falling into those "categories". Unfortunate, because theories sometimes do evolve into accepted fact, conspiracy most definitely does occur among corporations and nations, and even myth can be a veiled representation of some fact(s).

If I were to answer the original inquiry not as myself, but as someone with a different worldview, I can list several other persistent "myths, theories, or conspiracies" which *could* be annoying:

- our sun has a binary companion
- nothing 'moves' faster than light
- there's no missing 13th Amendment
- Al Gore won the 2000 election
- a "great flood" really did happen
- Earth's poles have moved before

That said, regarding some of the above six... the "truth" is difficult at best to detail, eternally mysterious at worst.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Nice that this thread came back from the dead so close to halloween!
Back on Occam's Razor:

From a signature above...
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler." -Albert Einstein

Moral of the story is that when you know for certain(in as much as humanly possible) the entire answer and you have two paths that truly arrive there successfully in all ways; Nature has shown us time and again that the simpler path and/or less ad hoc, is far more likely to be the one it took.

Occams razor exists to remind us that science is the study of nature(the universe) and if we are to be successful in understanding it we must model our theories to fit the evidence the universe provides for how it works. The further you stray from what is currently known as natural processes (experimental evidence) the less likely you are to have success.

The problem lies in poor application of the concept:
1) When only part of the situation is considered.
2) When the outcome is perceived as irrefutable truth and the eliminated theory can never be revisited. (a problem that occurs in almost every type of argument)
3) The arrogant belief that we know every facet of a problem beyond doubt and that we understand all we know about experimental evidence.

Occams razor makes the overly broad assumption that the person using it is exaustively considerate of all facets of the problem. Additionally it assumes the humility of any person with wisdom will result in reconsidering and revising based on any new data that affects the intial (supposedly) all-encompassing consideration. Occams Razor is a tool and remember that you can build a house or kill a man with a hammer...

The belief in pure absolute irrefutable truth that needs no revisiting is the domain of religeon, not science.

 

[No-where-man]

At what point did this thread turn into: "state some things that in which you personally don't believe but cannot prove either way"?
God (whether He exists or not) should surely not be mentioned on this thread.

I didn't start it,Ivan and cronxeh said it first,but I'll stop here.

 

[Human Being]

Electromagnetism

Okay, here's a solid case of a persistent theory that has been shown false:

The Grand Canyon was formed by the water erosion of the Colorado River.

http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_mars.htm

The two main points: water can't go uphill, and sediment can't disappear.
A much *better* theory with *far* better evidence: electric arc scarring.

Mainstream science pretty much accepts the "G.C. Water Erosion theory".
Their ignorance of the liklihood that electricity created the Grand Canyon,
is but a subset of their ignorance of the liklihood that electromagnetism is
the reason most galaxies don't "fly apart". No, on that larger issue they in
fact persist on an even less accurate theory: that of dark matter/energy.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm

To me, the suppression of the more accurate theory is detrimental to our
society on a grand scale. If the "electric universe" theory were accepted
by "mainstream science" (which IMHO comprises academia, corporations,
and governments "of influence" financially and/or politically) then perhaps
humanity could get itself out of its vicious cycle of destruction. We could
view the solar system dynamo in an improved way, in turn understanding
our sun better, our home planet better, etc. Gee, wouldn't it be great? ;)

 

[Alkatran]

I thought the point of Occam's Razor was only to stop people from randomly adding "and the invislbe pink unicorn sits there and doesn't interfere" to the end of theories. I mean, there are potentially other applications (two formulas give the same result, use the easy one) but I can't imagine it ever being used to decide between two different theories. For example, it should NOT be applied to ID vs evolution. ID has different predictions than evolution (example: none).

 

[loseyourname]

I thought the point of Occam's Razor was only to stop people from randomly adding "and the invislbe pink unicorn sits there and doesn't interfere" to the end of theories. I mean, there are potentially other applications (two formulas give the same result, use the easy one) but I can't imagine it ever being used to decide between two different theories. For example, it should NOT be applied to ID vs evolution. ID has different predictions than evolution (example: none).

There is something called the principle of parsimony that is used in cladistic analysis. When determining the evolutionary relationship of one species to another (not just biological species, but languages or anything else that evolves and branches off into multiple forms) there are times when two proposed phylogenies work equally well, and the one that is more compact is chosen if there is nothing else to go on. This is at least one place where something akin to Occam's razor is employed to help choose between competing hypotheses.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

I thought the point of Occam's Razor was only to stop people from randomly adding "and the invislbe pink unicorn...[snip] but I can't imagine it ever being used to decide between two different theories. For example, it should NOT be applied to ID vs evolution. ID has different predictions than evolution (example: none).

It's for deciding when two branches are equally valid in all but complexity. ID and evolution are not equal in their ability to predict and describe. So I'd say that would qualify as another of the horrible abuses that make people think occams razor is crap.

I believe it is useful at a micro and macro level but like any useful tool it can be dangerous when wielded improperly or with malicious intent. The wielder is at fault though, not the tool. I have no doubt your example is being used somewhere to "prove" ID.

 

[NutriGrainKiller]

A few things come to mind - none of them, unfortunately, are very physics related.

first - when infected with poison ivy, blisters appear on the skin. if these blisters pop, the liquid inside will not spread poison ivy to wherever it touches. This is assuming the original resin from the plant has been washed away. I've always had a difficult time explaining this to people.

the following relate to contradictory positions on drugs. First - it is a very common misconceptions that hallucinogens (lsd, mushrooms, mescaline, salvia etc..) make your brain bleed, which is false. Second - many people think a lifetime of drug usage has no long term effects. A perfect example is syd barrett, who went "crazy" from abusing acid (among other things) too much in the late sixties. Living in an altered state for extended periods of time may not damage your brain physically, but can psychologically destroy you.

Intelligent design supporters who shun the idea of evolution are ridiculous. I can’t even begin to put into words how embarrassed I am that more than half my country disregards it as lunacy.

 

[Fliption]

Intelligent design supporters who shun the idea of evolution are ridiculous. I can’t even begin to put into words how embarrassed I am that more than half my country disregards it as lunacy.

Even more embarrassing...the same people who are ashamed of this view of so many people are perfectly willing to accept the ability of these same people to make an informed vote and then eagerly declare that Al Gore won the election in 2000. (See post from above)