public misconceptions

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

pizzazz
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby pizzazz » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:17 am UTC

Technical Ben wrote:
pizzazz wrote:I don't know if this is so much a "public" misconception, but the AP Biology teacher at my high school said that the part of the textbook that said PCl5 has 5 bonds was a typo.


I may be wrong, and hopefully someone with knowledge will post, but is that down to a different compounds? Wiki mentions PCl3 and PCl6. So either the book put down the wrong compound for what it was covering or describing (easy typo) or your teacher assumed it was another compound, mistakenly.


I've had several problems in chemistry class that involved detailed data about PCl5, and our teacher said he always uses real numbers on tests, so I have to believe PCl5 is a real compound.

And yes I believe she said the typo was that PCl5 does not really have 5 bonds.

User avatar
kernelpanic
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am UTC
Location: 1.6180339x10^18 attoparsecs from Earth

Re: public misconceptions

Postby kernelpanic » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:25 am UTC

TheChewanater wrote:Define "okay".

It will have no negative effect.
I'm not disorganized. My room has a high entropy.
Bhelliom wrote:Don't forget that the cat probably knows EXACTLY what it is doing is is most likely just screwing with you. You know, for CAT SCIENCE!

Image

User avatar
TheChewanater
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:24 am UTC
Location: lol why am I still wearing a Santa suit?

Re: public misconceptions

Postby TheChewanater » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:38 am UTC

Nothing's okay, then.
ImageImage
http://internetometer.com/give/4279
No one can agree how to count how many types of people there are. You could ask two people and get 10 different answers.

User avatar
joshz
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:51 am UTC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: public misconceptions

Postby joshz » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:41 am UTC

How does taking a breath have a negative effect? Drinking a cup of purified water?
You, sir, name? wrote:If you have over 26 levels of nesting, you've got bigger problems ... than variable naming.
suffer-cait wrote:it might also be interesting to note here that i don't like 5 fingers. they feel too bulky.

User avatar
Charlie!
Posts: 2035
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Charlie! » Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:10 am UTC

joshz wrote:How does taking a breath have a negative effect? Drinking a cup of purified water?

Less for me.
Some people tell me I laugh too much. To them I say, "ha ha ha!"

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby BlackSails » Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:41 am UTC

Odd_nonposter wrote:Data on the Internet is somehow "floating in 'cyberspace.'"


This isnt really a misconception, just an analogy, and if you really want, you can say it is real. For instance, do we exist in 4-space or in some absurd-number dimensional phase space?

zlreitz
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:05 am UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: public misconceptions

Postby zlreitz » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:02 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:
pizzazz wrote:I don't know if this is so much a "public" misconception, but the AP Biology teacher at my high school said that the part of the textbook that said PCl5 has 5 bonds was a typo.


I may be wrong, and hopefully someone with knowledge will post, but is that down to a different compounds? Wiki mentions PCl3 and PCl6. So either the book put down the wrong compound for what it was covering or describing (easy typo) or your teacher assumed it was another compound, mistakenly.

Phosphorus pentachloride is a real compound. FWIW, there is no PCl6, so I'm not sure what you saw. It's possible that the teacher forgot about hypervalent bonding and decided that anything with more than four bonds is impossible. He is a biology teacher after all!

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Tass » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:06 pm UTC

zlreitz wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:
pizzazz wrote:I don't know if this is so much a "public" misconception, but the AP Biology teacher at my high school said that the part of the textbook that said PCl5 has 5 bonds was a typo.


I may be wrong, and hopefully someone with knowledge will post, but is that down to a different compounds? Wiki mentions PCl3 and PCl6. So either the book put down the wrong compound for what it was covering or describing (easy typo) or your teacher assumed it was another compound, mistakenly.

Phosphorus pentachloride is a real compound. FWIW, there is no PCl6, so I'm not sure what you saw. It's possible that the teacher forgot about hypervalent bonding and decided that anything with more than four bonds is impossible. He is a biology teacher after all!


PCl6- exists though

zlreitz
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:05 am UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: public misconceptions

Postby zlreitz » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:11 pm UTC

Tass wrote:
zlreitz wrote:Phosphorus pentachloride is a real compound. FWIW, there is no PCl6, so I'm not sure what you saw. It's possible that the teacher forgot about hypervalent bonding and decided that anything with more than four bonds is impossible. He is a biology teacher after all!


PCl6- exists though

Oh yeah. I forgot about that (and PCl4+).

User avatar
Bobber
contains Disodium Phosphate
Posts: 1357
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:09 pm UTC
Location: Holme, Denmark.
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Bobber » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:35 pm UTC

Cobramaster wrote:Now the misconception I have a problem with is thinking gen-mod foods can cause problems in them by creating mutations, even though that is impossible except for one method we have not actually used yet.

Funny to think that since this post was made, gen-mod foods DID cause problems by creating mutations.

(If I have in fact actually fallen for the misconception, please please tell me)
I don't twist the truth, I just make it complex.
mrbaggins wrote:There are two tools in life, duct tape and WD40. If it moves and shouldn't, use the tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3715
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: public misconceptions

Postby PM 2Ring » Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:25 pm UTC

Bobber wrote:Funny to think that since this post was made, gen-mod foods DID cause problems by creating mutations.

(If I have in fact actually fallen for the misconception, please please tell me)

Nobody is claiming that mutations have been caused by the use of glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crops. Mutant genes arise spontaneously. Many mutations have only a small effect, some are deadly, and a few may be useful, depending on the selection pressures in the current environment. Herbicides create a strong selection pressure for resistance, and weeds are generally prolific reproducers, so it is very easy for resistant plants to dominate the gene pool in a few generations. This is not a new problem: farmers have been unintentionally breeding herbicide-resistant weeds since the introduction of chemical herbicides.

It's not easy to find unbiased sources about topics like this by a quick Googling, but information from publications aimed at farmer's is generally pretty good, since they don't want to alienate the farmers or the agriculture supply companies. Eg, this article from Delta Farm Press, Arkansas fields of glyphosate-resistant pigweed, looks ok.

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Mr_Rose » Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:23 pm UTC

Bobber wrote:
Cobramaster wrote:Now the misconception I have a problem with is thinking gen-mod foods can cause problems in them by creating mutations, even though that is impossible except for one method we have not actually used yet.

Funny to think that since this post was made, gen-mod foods DID cause problems by creating mutations.

(If I have in fact actually fallen for the misconception, please please tell me)

Here's a fun public misconception; you can assume the content of an article by reading the headline and therefore safely cite it in an argument without reading the content. Especially if you claim the article says something that is physically impossible, because nobody actually reads those things, right? :roll:
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

User avatar
Idhan
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:33 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Idhan » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:13 pm UTC

I'm not sure whether you consider economics a science (I evasively call it a "discipline" when not discussing its science/non-science status), but one generalized misconception (or series of related misconceptions): either economics 1) consists primarily of sweeping generalizations which happen to support your political views, or 2) consists primarily of sweeping generalizations which oppose your political views, and also mainstream economics is a fraud perpetrated by the capitalist ruling class or by the Keynesian statist establishment.

Sometimes, this takes the form of a pundit saying "econ 101 says x," where x is a generalization like "low taxes are the key to prosperity," or "education is critical to economic development." Ironically, I think introductory econ 101 (or 10100, or 0010, or whatever actual designation is used) is the place you're least likely to find such things -- more advanced courses in things like public finance, etc, are more likely to yield such politically charged insights (whatever they may be). Econ 101 is more likely to involve learning how to apply LaGrangian multipliers a lot to different circumstances like Cournot duopolies and supply shocks, understanding discount rates and externalities, etc, without much direct political application (even if there are some political lessons in it like "rent control usually isn't a good idea.")

User avatar
kernelpanic
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am UTC
Location: 1.6180339x10^18 attoparsecs from Earth

Re: public misconceptions

Postby kernelpanic » Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:09 pm UTC

-That "freezing"/"boiling" mean cold/hot. As in "Don't touch that! It's boiling!", when actually it is already frozen.
I'm not disorganized. My room has a high entropy.
Bhelliom wrote:Don't forget that the cat probably knows EXACTLY what it is doing is is most likely just screwing with you. You know, for CAT SCIENCE!

Image

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: public misconceptions

Postby The Scyphozoa » Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:16 pm UTC

kernelpanic wrote:-That "freezing"/"boiling" mean cold/hot. As in "Don't touch that! It's boiling!", when actually it is already frozen.

You mean, like, a solid object that's very hot, but still solid?
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

User avatar
kernelpanic
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am UTC
Location: 1.6180339x10^18 attoparsecs from Earth

Re: public misconceptions

Postby kernelpanic » Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:47 pm UTC

The Scyphozoa wrote:
kernelpanic wrote:-That "freezing"/"boiling" mean cold/hot. As in "Don't touch that! It's boiling!", when actually it is already frozen.

You mean, like, a solid object that's very hot, but still solid?

Yes. Or cold water that is still liquid but is said to be freezing. No, it's molten.
I'm not disorganized. My room has a high entropy.
Bhelliom wrote:Don't forget that the cat probably knows EXACTLY what it is doing is is most likely just screwing with you. You know, for CAT SCIENCE!

Image

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby You, sir, name? » Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 am UTC

kernelpanic wrote:
The Scyphozoa wrote:
kernelpanic wrote:-That "freezing"/"boiling" mean cold/hot. As in "Don't touch that! It's boiling!", when actually it is already frozen.

You mean, like, a solid object that's very hot, but still solid?

Yes. Or cold water that is still liquid but is said to be freezing. No, it's molten.


Well, one can define the temperatures "freezing cold" and "boiling hot", to mean temperatures around the freezing and boiling temperature of water at SP. In that sense, it kinda works. The same way we can measure the speed of things in terms of the speed of light, even though they're not necessarily light themselves; we should be able to measure the temperatures of things in terms of the transition temperatures of water, even though they're not themselves water.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
kernelpanic
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am UTC
Location: 1.6180339x10^18 attoparsecs from Earth

Re: public misconceptions

Postby kernelpanic » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:43 pm UTC

You, sir, name? wrote:
kernelpanic wrote:
The Scyphozoa wrote:
kernelpanic wrote:-That "freezing"/"boiling" mean cold/hot. As in "Don't touch that! It's boiling!", when actually it is already frozen.

You mean, like, a solid object that's very hot, but still solid?

Yes. Or cold water that is still liquid but is said to be freezing. No, it's molten.


Well, one can define the temperatures "freezing cold" and "boiling hot", to mean temperatures around the freezing and boiling temperature of water at SP. In that sense, it kinda works. The same way we can measure the speed of things in terms of the speed of light, even though they're not necessarily light themselves; we should be able to measure the temperatures of things in terms of the transition temperatures of water, even though they're not themselves water.

I understand that, and in fact it's what we do everyday (except the US, they still use horrible units), and I'm OK with that. The problem is saying this is freezing.
I'm not disorganized. My room has a high entropy.
Bhelliom wrote:Don't forget that the cat probably knows EXACTLY what it is doing is is most likely just screwing with you. You know, for CAT SCIENCE!

Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:46 pm UTC

If I say, "It's freezing outside," I'm pretty sure every native English speaker everywhere knows exactly what I mean. I think it's safe to assume freezing and boiling refer to water unless a specific other substance is understood.

In other words, I have no idea what actual misconception kernelpanic is even talking about...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Mr_Rose » Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:06 pm UTC

Yeah, this is the misconceptions thread, not the "idioms I hate" thread.
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

PossibleSloth
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 6:51 am UTC
Location: Boston (or thereabouts)

Re: public misconceptions

Postby PossibleSloth » Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:50 pm UTC

Don't touch that! It's sublimating!

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Steax » Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:05 pm UTC

I thought that when a person says "it's boiling hot!" they're implying that it could boil water at that temperature (as for most people, the only thing they need to boil purposely on a daily basis is water), not that the object itself is at it's boiling temperature.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

Ignitus
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:48 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Ignitus » Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:52 pm UTC

kernelpanic wrote:
The Scyphozoa wrote:
kernelpanic wrote:-That "freezing"/"boiling" mean cold/hot. As in "Don't touch that! It's boiling!", when actually it is already frozen.

You mean, like, a solid object that's very hot, but still solid?

Yes. Or cold water that is still liquid but is said to be freezing. No, it's molten.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/molten
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/molten

http://www.dictionary.net/frozen
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frozen

I have looked up about three other websites to make sure, but I am fairly sure that molten is only correctly used when referring to elements and compounds that are solid at room temperature. Obviously to get to room temperature heat must of been added from some place you could be a stickler and say all liquids are molten, but every site I find uses rock or lead as the example, so i find the use of molten in reference to water odd.

The original poster brings up a complaint about the words freezing and boiling, but then miss uses frozen and molten to mean states of mater in a generalized form and not the more common usages of the terms which are stated with respect to the state the material exist at room temperature. Anyone else have an opinion the meaning of Frozen and Molten.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:57 pm UTC

No, you're pretty much right. If we want to refer just to the state of matter, we use the word for that state of matter: solid, liquid, or gas. If we use "boiling" for something other than water, it's *always* specified, such as "the boiling point of liquid helium is a million degrees below zero" or whatever.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Whelan
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:16 pm UTC
Location: Londonshire.

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Whelan » Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:39 pm UTC

It's closer to 260 below 0, if we're talking Celcius.
"I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth; I have a horror of blinding people with science"- Richard Dawkins
Weeks wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:And all I get is this tame space dragon. Where's my recognition?!
A tame dragon is its own reward.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:59 pm UTC

Meh, two hundred sixty is a lot of degrees. Might as well just call it a million.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Antimony-120 » Sat Jul 03, 2010 1:05 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Meh, two hundred sixty is a lot of degrees. Might as well just call it a million.


Within the error bar range.

On that note, a common misconception, precise and accurate are the same thing. It doesn't bother mean when the words are used incorrectly, I forget which is which all the time. But they are very distinct concepts. Just because somebody has a very precise (low margin of error) estimate does not mean that it is remotely accurate (close to the actual value). And if someone's estimate was very accurate (true) it may not have been precise.

A car costs 49$-51$ <- Precise but not accurate. The range is onl 2$, but it's not even remotely close to true.

A car costs 1$-2 000 000 000$ <- Accurate but not precise, yes every car falls into this range so it is true, but the range is so huge that it's essentially meaningless.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

Anglesey Cottages
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:46 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Anglesey Cottages » Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:00 pm UTC

There are a number of public misconceptions about science which I find very disconcerting. Let me share one which I heard at dinner with friends and family a few weekends ago.

We were discussing the benefits of certain foods for wellness and general health and of course someone mentioned strawberries and blueberries. To my astonishment a few of the guests started to say the reason a stawberry was good for you was because when you slicve it in two, it resembles a heart. So, eating strawberries is good for cardiovascular health. QED.

If it were so simple! Now perhaps strawberries are good for heart health, but I am sure it ain't anything to do with its shape. Perhaps it may be something to do with the high level of polyphenols in strawberries as in other berries, such as the anthocyanins in blueberries etc. They are supposed to be great anti-oxidants, so could help in general well-being.

Another one was how a walnut looks like, you guessed it, a brain! Please! Walnuts are rich in some of the essential polyunsaturated oils, sure and so have benefits. That discussion is for another day. Just 2 examples of a frighteningly poor foundation for understanding basic biochemistry, physiology and nutrition.

And that's before we talk about how the world came about! Was it only 7 days? :)

David

User avatar
Whelan
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:16 pm UTC
Location: Londonshire.

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Whelan » Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:20 pm UTC

I don't trust polyphenols. On their own they're nasty buggers, so why should a collection of them make them nice? It's illogical.
"I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth; I have a horror of blinding people with science"- Richard Dawkins
Weeks wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:And all I get is this tame space dragon. Where's my recognition?!
A tame dragon is its own reward.

User avatar
Omegaton
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Omegaton » Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:24 pm UTC

Anglesey Cottages wrote:There are a number of public misconceptions about science which I find very disconcerting. Let me share one which I heard at dinner with friends and family a few weekends ago.

We were discussing the benefits of certain foods for wellness and general health and of course someone mentioned strawberries and blueberries. To my astonishment a few of the guests started to say the reason a stawberry was good for you was because when you slicve it in two, it resembles a heart. So, eating strawberries is good for cardiovascular health. QED.

If it were so simple! Now perhaps strawberries are good for heart health, but I am sure it ain't anything to do with its shape. Perhaps it may be something to do with the high level of polyphenols in strawberries as in other berries, such as the anthocyanins in blueberries etc. They are supposed to be great anti-oxidants, so could help in general well-being.

Another one was how a walnut looks like, you guessed it, a brain! Please! Walnuts are rich in some of the essential polyunsaturated oils, sure and so have benefits. That discussion is for another day. Just 2 examples of a frighteningly poor foundation for understanding basic biochemistry, physiology and nutrition.

And that's before we talk about how the world came about! Was it only 7 days? :)

David

You know what else looks like hearts and brains? Real hearts and brains. Mmmm.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:04 am UTC

Omegaton wrote:
Anglesey Cottages wrote:There are a number of public misconceptions about science which I find very disconcerting. Let me share one which I heard at dinner with friends and family a few weekends ago.

We were discussing the benefits of certain foods for wellness and general health and of course someone mentioned strawberries and blueberries. To my astonishment a few of the guests started to say the reason a stawberry was good for you was because when you slicve it in two, it resembles a heart. So, eating strawberries is good for cardiovascular health. QED.

If it were so simple! Now perhaps strawberries are good for heart health, but I am sure it ain't anything to do with its shape. Perhaps it may be something to do with the high level of polyphenols in strawberries as in other berries, such as the anthocyanins in blueberries etc. They are supposed to be great anti-oxidants, so could help in general well-being.

Another one was how a walnut looks like, you guessed it, a brain! Please! Walnuts are rich in some of the essential polyunsaturated oils, sure and so have benefits. That discussion is for another day. Just 2 examples of a frighteningly poor foundation for understanding basic biochemistry, physiology and nutrition.

And that's before we talk about how the world came about! Was it only 7 days? :)

David

You know what else looks like hearts and brains? Real hearts and brains. Mmmm.


If there isn't a good soul food joke in here...
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3715
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: public misconceptions

Postby PM 2Ring » Sun Jul 04, 2010 2:21 am UTC

Anglesey Cottages wrote: To my astonishment a few of the guests started to say the reason a stawberry was good for you was because when you slicve it in two, it resembles a heart. So, eating strawberries is good for cardiovascular health. QED.

If it were so simple! Now perhaps strawberries are good for heart health, but I am sure it ain't anything to do with its shape.

This belief is ancient and widespread. It is not confined to the Western tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_signatures wrote:The doctrine of signatures is a philosophy shared by herbalists from the time of Dioscurides and Galen that is still reflected in the common names of some plants whose coincidental shapes and colors reminded the gatherers of such simples of the parts of the body where they could do good: liverwort; snakeroot, an antidote for snake venom; lungwort; bloodroot; toothwort; wormwood, to expel intestinal parasites; and the like. A theological foundation was supplied for the consonance between plants and their curative properties: "it was reasoned that the Almighty must have set his sign upon the various means of curing disease which he provided."[1]
[...]
The doctrine of signatures was further spread by the writings of Jakob Böhme (1575–1624), who suggested that God marked objects with a sign, or "signature", for their purpose.[2] For instance, a plant bearing parts that resembled human body parts, animals, or other objects had useful relevance to those parts, animals or objects. The "signature" may also be identified in the environments or specific sites in which plants grew.
[...]
Scientific recognition

Scientists generally interpret the doctrine of signatures as superstition. The links are not causal, and are consequently widely regarded as purely coincidental. There is no evidence that plant signatures helped in discovery of medical uses of the plants. The signatures are described as post hoc attributions and mnemonics.[4] Their mnemonic status is of value in creating a system for remembering actions attributed to medical herbs.

Others point out that there may, in some cases, be rational explanations for the apparent success of the doctrine of signatures in predicting the medical properties of certain plants. For example, a thorny plant may be likely to have immune-boosting compounds as well, because both relate to the environment in which the plant grows, i.e., one in which there are many microbial and animal threats and where the plant needs both forms of protection to survive.

The doctrine of signatures is a classic example of confirmation bias at work. An ancient herbalist who accepted this doctrine probably wouldn't conceive of a plant having curative abilities that were inconsistent with its "signature" and may not notice good effects that didn't conform to this model.

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: public misconceptions

Postby The Scyphozoa » Sun Jul 04, 2010 2:30 am UTC

Omegaton wrote:You know what else looks like hearts and brains? Real hearts and brains. Mmmm.

You know what else looks like hearts and brains? Raw cyanide sculpted and painted like hearts and brains. Mmmm.
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

User avatar
Kurushimi
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Kurushimi » Sun Jul 04, 2010 4:01 am UTC

Religious people are stupid.

I'm not religious (anymore), but it's not stupidity that keeps people religious. These same people can be very rational when it comes to other aspects of their lives. But it's near impossible to break out of it if that's what you've been brought up on since birth. Even with a completely rational argument there's always that voice whispering in the back of your head saying "what if you're wrong? Is being right worth risking an eternity of suffering?"


But yeah. Indoctrination is hard to break. No matter how smart you are.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3715
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: public misconceptions

Postby PM 2Ring » Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:12 am UTC

Kurushimi wrote:"what if you're wrong? Is being right worth risking an eternity of suffering?"

This is one aspect of religion that I really dislike. Inflicting that sort of crap on small children counts as psychological child abuse in my book. What sort of loving God would really do that sort of thing?

FWIW, I consider myself religious, but many of my religious friends think I'm really an atheist because I am not fundamentalistic and I promote the theory of evolution. Oh well.

User avatar
Idhan
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:33 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Idhan » Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:16 pm UTC

Whelan wrote:I don't trust polyphenols. On their own they're nasty buggers, so why should a collection of them make them nice? It's illogical.


To take that logic a step further, considering how bad benzene is for you, you'd probably be safest just avoiding all substances with aromatic groups, like phenylalanine, tryptophan, and tyrosine. (Tyrosine's even a phenol too!)

I'm assuming your making some sort of joke about the role of fallacies of composition in public misconceptions, but over the Internet it can be hard to tell what is sarcasm.

User avatar
Whelan
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:16 pm UTC
Location: Londonshire.

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Whelan » Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:44 pm UTC

It was actually a misconception I held myself when I started As chemistry. Then I learned about how the most reactive elements generally make the most stable compounds, and now it all makes sense. Despite being somewhat counter-intuitive.
"I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth; I have a horror of blinding people with science"- Richard Dawkins
Weeks wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:And all I get is this tame space dragon. Where's my recognition?!
A tame dragon is its own reward.

User avatar
kernelpanic
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am UTC
Location: 1.6180339x10^18 attoparsecs from Earth

Re: public misconceptions

Postby kernelpanic » Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:27 pm UTC

Omegaton wrote:
Anglesey Cottages wrote:There are a number of public misconceptions about science which I find very disconcerting. Let me share one which I heard at dinner with friends and family a few weekends ago.

We were discussing the benefits of certain foods for wellness and general health and of course someone mentioned strawberries and blueberries. To my astonishment a few of the guests started to say the reason a stawberry was good for you was because when you slicve it in two, it resembles a heart. So, eating strawberries is good for cardiovascular health. QED.

If it were so simple! Now perhaps strawberries are good for heart health, but I am sure it ain't anything to do with its shape. Perhaps it may be something to do with the high level of polyphenols in strawberries as in other berries, such as the anthocyanins in blueberries etc. They are supposed to be great anti-oxidants, so could help in general well-being.

Another one was how a walnut looks like, you guessed it, a brain! Please! Walnuts are rich in some of the essential polyunsaturated oils, sure and so have benefits. That discussion is for another day. Just 2 examples of a frighteningly poor foundation for understanding basic biochemistry, physiology and nutrition.

And that's before we talk about how the world came about! Was it only 7 days? :)

David

You know what else looks like hearts and brains? Real hearts and brains. Mmmm.


You may be joking, but have you eaten [cow] hearts and brains? They're delicious.
I'm not disorganized. My room has a high entropy.
Bhelliom wrote:Don't forget that the cat probably knows EXACTLY what it is doing is is most likely just screwing with you. You know, for CAT SCIENCE!

Image

Ended
Posts: 1459
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:27 pm UTC
Location: The Tower of Flints. (Also known as: England.)

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Ended » Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:25 pm UTC

Whelan wrote:It was actually a misconception I held myself when I started As chemistry. Then I learned about how the most reactive elements generally make the most stable compounds, and now it all makes sense. Despite being somewhat counter-intuitive.

"So drop this stuff into water, right, and it freakin explodes in your face, and breathe this other stuff in and it turns into acid inside your lungs and kills you. But put them together and aha! you have the perfect seasoning for your egg sandwich."
Generally I try to make myself do things I instinctively avoid, in case they are awesome.
-dubsola

User avatar
Omegaton
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Omegaton » Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:29 pm UTC

kernelpanic wrote:
Omegaton wrote:
Anglesey Cottages wrote:There are a number of public misconceptions about science which I find very disconcerting. Let me share one which I heard at dinner with friends and family a few weekends ago.

We were discussing the benefits of certain foods for wellness and general health and of course someone mentioned strawberries and blueberries. To my astonishment a few of the guests started to say the reason a stawberry was good for you was because when you slicve it in two, it resembles a heart. So, eating strawberries is good for cardiovascular health. QED.

If it were so simple! Now perhaps strawberries are good for heart health, but I am sure it ain't anything to do with its shape. Perhaps it may be something to do with the high level of polyphenols in strawberries as in other berries, such as the anthocyanins in blueberries etc. They are supposed to be great anti-oxidants, so could help in general well-being.

Another one was how a walnut looks like, you guessed it, a brain! Please! Walnuts are rich in some of the essential polyunsaturated oils, sure and so have benefits. That discussion is for another day. Just 2 examples of a frighteningly poor foundation for understanding basic biochemistry, physiology and nutrition.

And that's before we talk about how the world came about! Was it only 7 days? :)

David

You know what else looks like hearts and brains? Real hearts and brains. Mmmm.


You may be joking, but have you eaten [cow] hearts and brains? They're delicious.

I have eaten pig heart, but not brains.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests