Most Persistent Myths: Debunking the Loch Ness Monster

[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! :tongue:

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. :tongue2:
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? :rofl:

 

[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 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:-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. :uhh: ]
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? ;)