Most Persistent Myths: Debunking the Loch Ness Monster

[matthyaouw]

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.

A personal favorite of mine is:
"The Loch Ness Monster is a descendent of a dinosaur (plesiosaur, icthiosaur, etc.) that was cut off from the sea in prehistoric times, and remained there ever since."
No. Loch Ness is in a glacial trough and would not have been present a million years ago, and even if it were, any dinosaur would be buruied under 20 metres of till at its bed, or frozen in ice and carried out into the middle of the North Sea and dumped on its floor.

 

[cronxeh]

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"

 

[selfAdjoint]

"Evolution is impossible because it contradicts thermodynamics."

 

[hypermorphism]

1. Glass is a liquid which flows very slowly. ( LoL http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/www.uAlberta.ca/~bderksen/florin.html )
2. Boiling water freezes faster than cold water. (Come on people, you have freezers! )
3. The universe must be bounded in order to be expanding. (sigh)
4. Horrifying amalgamations of Newtonian principles applied to SR or QM.
Many others that are not as prevalent in my bad memory.

PS. Ah yes, the evolution one always crops up.

 

[cronxeh]

glass _is_ a liquid

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[mapper]

That flat Earth web page is obviously a joke. The author can really be serious.

You can easily tell from his outlandish FAQ: Like this one

11. Does this fit in with the Hollow Earth theory?
Yes. Beneath the Earth, or hanging off the edges, is a land populated by either green-skinned women or Nazis. All those claiming to have seen this have misinterpreted it to fit in with the spurious and false Spherical Earth theory.

and this one

16. Can ships be 'lost' at the edge of the Earth?
Yes, at least in places where there are no mountains preventing this from occurring. The edge of the Earth is, in places a tremendous waterfall, and anything going over the edge will disappear into the aether. This can also happen to aircraft which fly off the edge.

No way someone can truly believe any of that.

 

[mapper]

Most persistent myths i hate are Santa, Easter bunny etc.. We will always lie to our kids about these so we can continue to brain wash them so they can grow up to be commercial whores.

 

[derekmohammed]

2. Boiling water freezes faster than cold water. (Come on people, you have freezers! )

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...

 

[derekmohammed]

Flat Earth Society

I am going to have to agree with Mapper
In the section that has the dig, it says for more info go to Dave Fischer' homepage. If you read his stuff you will find that it is all just a joke. He appears to have a lot of time on his hands. (Or do I since I am doing all this searching? )

I am not an expert or anything but I know that one of my proffesors got his PHD for doing work on the visocity of metals. AKA in the application of bridges tall buildings, ect. Why can glass not have any viscosity? It does!

 

[Bladibla]

bermuda triangle?

 

[TheAntiRelative]

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...

Yeah, I was going to jump on that myself. Not necessarily "boiling" but there are certain threshholds. I didn't see the discussion here on the site but I believe it has to do with the circulation of warmer water transporting heat to the extremties and causing a loop that cools all of the water instead of an icy insulation layer forming quickly.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

I'll have to go with Ivan's answers but I'll also add as my annoyance:

1) The belief that Occam's razor is not a useful and important part of the scientific method regardless of proper understanding and proper application.

Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's right...

 

[hypermorphism]

I am not an expert or anything but I know that one of my proffesors got his PHD for doing work on the visocity of metals. AKA in the application of bridges tall buildings, ect. Why can glass not have any viscosity? It does!

Yet another reason viscosity is a poor judge of character. See Physics FAQ http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html .

 

[hypermorphism]

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...

Not the myth I was going after. When people mention this myth in passing (at least in my experience), they believe it holds true for *any* temperature difference, which is a false statement (hence my "boiling" example). Like most recurring myths, it is an overgeneralization of a truly interesting result.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll have to go with Ivan's answers but I'll also add as my annoyance:

1) The belief that Occam's razor is not a useful and important part of the scientific method regardless of proper understanding and proper application.

Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's right...

Could you give a specific example? I don't really see where it ever applies in practice except for where either the implication are staggeringly obvious, or perhaps in a purely mathematical sense. If we have two models that are equally successful in predicting results, however one model uses one more variable than the other, based on Occam's Razor, do we say that one is true and the other not, or do we design a test for the question at hand - which is the correct model? Aside from forming the basis for personal opinions, how is it used?

 

[chroot]

glass _is_ a liquid

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

- Warren

 

[chroot]

One of the most popular physics myths around is that the coriolis force makes your toilet water drain in one direction, while toilets on the other side of the equator drain the opposite direction.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

There are so many evolution myths it's not funny.

"The eye is irreducible, and could not have developed by parts."

"Evolution is random, and only occurs by mutation."

"We have never actually seen evolution happen."

- Warren

 

[Chronos]

Well, hot water actually can be frozen faster than cold water. It is called the Mpemba effect.

 

[hypermorphism]

Well, hot water actually can be frozen faster than cold water. It is called the Mpemba effect.

This is not the statement made.

 

[Chronos]

Early steam powered ships often used dehydrated cowpies as fuel. They were much cheaper and lighter than wood. It was common practice to store them below deck in bundles in a room adjacent to the boiler. Unfortunately, upon exposure to water, which was not uncommon in ships of the time, fermentation resumed producing methane gas. The methane would build up and the next time someone went into the storage room with a lantern. BOOOOM! A number of ships were lost in this fashion before it was realized what was happening. The bundles were thereafter required by maritime law to be stamped "S.H.I.T." which meant "Ship High In Transit."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

- Warren

From what I have read when silicate is melted and then cooled it does not return to it's crystalized form but retains the form that it had as a liquid only cooled and hardened.

 

[chroot]

From what I have read when silicate is melted and then cooled it does not return to it's crystalized form but retains the form that it had as a liquid only cooled and hardened.

Glass is an amorphous solid. It is not crystalline, and it is not liquid.

- Warren

 

[Telos]

Everything on Wikipedia's Scientific Mythology page.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Could you give a specific example? I don't really see where it ever applies in practice except for where either the implication are staggeringly obvious, or perhaps in a purely mathematical sense. If we have two models that are equally successful in predicting results, however one model uses one more variable than the other, based on Occam's Razor, do we say that one is true and the other not, or do we design a test for the question at hand - which is the correct model? Aside from forming the basis for personal opinions, how is it used?

This reminds me of another myth, that something has to give definite results to be useful. Occam's razor is never the final word, but if you don't consider it in evaluating theories, you'll get easily bogged down by the BS. In the example you gave, all other things equal, a good scientist should favor the one with fewer parameters, but should suspend judgement until its predictions have been tested. The value of this is that we know which theories are more likely to be right and therefore worth devoting time and money to testing. In astronomy, for example, there are many more theories than there is telescope time to test them.

 

[matthyaouw]

One of the most popular physics myths around is that the coriolis force makes your toilet water drain in one direction, while toilets on the other side of the equator drain the opposite direction.

- Warren

I've never understood this one at all. My toilet does not swirl at all as it flushes, and I'm not sure I've seen any (other than those that use angled water jets) that do.

 

[SpaceTiger]

One of the most popular physics myths around is that the coriolis force makes your toilet water drain in one direction, while toilets on the other side of the equator drain the opposite direction.

If you can't trust "The Simpsons", who can you trust?!

 

[Mariko]

" 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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

all other things equal, a good scientist should favor the one with fewer parameters, but should suspend judgement until its predictions have been tested.

How exactly do we determine when all things are equal? When are things ever so simple that this really applies? It seems to me that this gets into [subjective] interpretations of the evidence, which effectively reduces Occams Razor to circular logic.

 

[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.