Wiki: List Of Common Misconceptions

Submitted by: 5cats 6 years ago in Tech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

Every human alive NEEDS to read this!
There are 67 comments:
Female 211
The extent of my own education boggles me sometimes.
0
Reply
Female 155
I never knew anything until today. :-O
0
Reply
Male 11
"Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys...This common ancestor diverged into separate lineages" oddly enough, my priest taught me that
0
Reply
Male 423
258 references... <3
0
Reply
Male 59
This would be good if it weren`t for the fact that several are incorrect. Take gyroscopic stability, for example. Even the references state it is an important factor in balancing a bicycle. Whether it is "required" would depend on a variety of factors, such as the weight and skill of the rider. i.e. Yes, a skilled rider can perform a "track stand", but gyroscopic forces sure make riding a flop-load easier!
0
Reply
Male 25,416
ewwww
0
Reply
Male 487
my entire world has been rocked... I effectively know nothing today. drat you jimmy whales.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Wikipedia is frequently as reliable, or slightly less reliable than the Brittanica.[/quote]

Which is another misconception.

You`re (maybe unknowingly) quoting a false conclusion from a deeply flawed study.

Firstly, even the content-free media release showed a significant difference.

Secondly, the study counted errors in spelling as being equal to errors in content.

Thirdly, the study repeatedly counted spelling errors in Britannica when in fact Britannica had the correct spelling and the people doing the study had an incorrect spelling or an accepted alternative spelling.

Fourthly, the study counted unchecked and unsubstantiate opinions as fact, i.e. if they thought Britannica was wrong they counted it as being wrong. Even if it wasn`t.
0
Reply
Female 423
Of course the mythbusters had to be mentionned as having busted one of those common misconceptions :)
0
Reply
Male 12
Consider this:

0.999° x 10 = 9.999°
9.999° - 0.999° = 9

Leaving 9/10 of 9.999°

9 / 9 = 1

Taking it back to 1/10 that was 0.999° at the start
0
Reply
Male 20
For the .9~ thing, its kind of ridiculous because if something infinitely approaches 1 then it will always be less than 1. Theoretically it isn`t 1 then so I would agree with the people that wrote that it isn`t 1 on the test. However, because things are finite, seeing as mathematics has to do with reality, any number that is infinitely close to approaching a number is impossible since there isn`t even such thing as something infinitely divided so it would have to realistically be the number it is approaching.
0
Reply
Male 155
this while 0.(9) discussion reminds me of the the Dichotomy Paradox (second one down)
0
Reply
Male 494
Also, that`s why 10/3 is .3333333333333333333~
0
Reply
Male 494
@Gerry

In Calculus and Physics, we use the limit part of a function and the significant digits for this reason.
In actual practice, there is that no equipment will measure to infinite precision, so significant digits and the limit function are the best we can do.

There are two ways of looking at the .9999~ thing:

1.
1/9 = .111111111111111111111~
8/9 = .888888888888888888888~
1/9+8/9 = 9/9 = 1

When you consider it, it makes sense.
.9999999999999 does NOT equal one.
However, .9999999999999~ is just another way of writing 1.

Again, in practice, you will never ever have to worry about whether or not .99999999999~ is equal to 1. But it technically is.
0
Reply
Male 6,694
Common Misconception. Im a push over.
Common Misconception. I wont kick your a$$.
Common Misconception. Im not cool.
0
Reply
Male 38,511
about .999etc = 1

Oh, well if you are gonna round up to the nearest whole number then DUH, of course!

Nobody said anything about rounding up.

Stupid mathmaticians. I`m gonna go kick some math geek ass now.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
@cluffy: Look at the bright side. At least you learned the Earth isn`t flat.
0
Reply
Female 1,784
I remember being taught about the toung has differnt sides for differnt tastes. I remember when I was little thinking it didn`t make any sence. Its crazy what I learned from school turned out to be wrong. makes you think what else you learn was wrong
0
Reply
Male 50
was it me or has most of that stuff been on QI
0
Reply
Female 12
0
Reply
Male 86
should we be happy or sad that there`s only 1 misconception in mathematics lol
0
Reply
Male 901
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

Proven in many different ways. They are not just "almost exactly the same", they are the same. Just two different ways of writing the same number.
0
Reply
Male 63
I`m pretty stoned at 3 am and I only made it to the Obama not being Muslim one before I realised it was bullpoo.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
tl;dr

i`ll have to come back to this when its not 1:30am
0
Reply
Male 3,076
@SpookyDoom76 why?
TLDR
0
Reply
Male 6
this link is a death trap for stoners
0
Reply
Male 8,302
"such as the ballc.ock mechanism used to fill toilet tanks"

Depends whether ur filling it with No 1 or No 2! But at least we know that some inventor somewhere had a sense of humor!
0
Reply
Male 38,511
The worlds most common misconception: People who blog are writing something intelligent or worthwhile.
0
Reply
Male 2,294
Wikipedia is frequently as reliable, or slightly less reliable than the Brittanica. Why people have such a big issue with it has to stem from the fact it`s open-source, but look at Linux--open source, and it thrives, and performs better than any of the other OS.

Open source doesn`t mean it is stupid. People can edit it, but it has to get scrutinized over and over and over again, and there are admins and moderators.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
You should never need to use Wikipedia as a reference - Wikipedia cites its sources. Just click the little number next to the thing you wanted to cite, and use that as your source instead of Wikipedia. Keeps your professors happy and saves you a lot of work.
0
Reply
Male 423
Bow down before the almighty and omnipotent Wikipedia,puny humans!
0
Reply
Male 191
Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb.[241] He did, however, develop the first practical light bulb in 1880.


WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
0
Reply
Female 536
soooooo glad to see the vaccine thing on here
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Ah wikipedeia where every small fry user can sign up an put their 2 cents of reliable information.
0
Reply
Male 496
I have to agree with everyones points on wikipedia regarding its "reliability". It is reliable, but academics scoff at it`s use because (in the words of my professor) "it can be edited by anyone, anywhere, for any reason, and you can`t hold it in your hand. You can`t research from it because you can`t quote "wikiedia" as a general reference."

I of course gave him the counter argument but when these things are passed down from on high and made a requirement to pass your course then so be it. A hack is I use wikipedia for my references and quotes but quote the original reference listed at the bottom. Really frustrates me that our educational leaders can be this thick towards a collective knowledge base, which is truly a benefit to anyone that uses it. Want information on something? Used to have to go to the library, now you google and -everything- you want to know is available.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
That ONE scientist who disagrees knows the secret.

Seriously, anti man-made climate change believers are like the people who don`t believe the 90% of doctors telling them they have lung cancer. WHAT DO THEY KNOW??? WHAT WITH THEIR STUDIES, AND TEST-TUBES, TELLING ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE????

If 90% if doctors tell me to quit smoking, its because they are probably right about cancer. Republicans say, don`t trust those guys, the 10% of doctors who say smoking doesn`t cause cancer are the people who REALLY can be trusted.....
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"I don`t know why it is so often singled out for being "unreliable"."

I do. Its called "idiots." Its people who don`t understand the power of collective knowledge. I can say that something is "false," but 9 people can come in and tell everyone that it is "true."

Its old people who make this argument. "Anyone can edit wikipedia, so I can`t trust it." They fail to see the power in COLLECTIVE CORRECTION.

Yes, any jackass can plant false info on wikipedia. But the MASSES do not let it stand - people who KNOW correct it.

This is the reason we have idiots in America who deny manmade global warming based on the FACT that the vast majority (+95%) of trained, PhD scientists say it is a fact.

If a team of doctors diagnoses me, AND 9 of 10 TELL ME I HAVE CANCER, I believe the 9 of 10.

Republicans believe the 9 scientists in 10 are in some sort of LIBERAL conspiracy....
0
Reply
Male 2,506
Okay I`ve never tl;dr`d this hard in my life
0
Reply
Male 4,014
There is no such thing as 1/3 in a system that uses decimals and base ten logic. But I can cut a pie into three pieces.
0
Reply
Female 44
...weird.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
This was excellent. Want a fun challenge? Disprove these purported misconceptions.
0
Reply
Male 1,548
@spider_sol
no, .333... is an approximation of 1/3 because that fraction doesn`t work in base 10. The actual argument in favor if it has to do with limits, which it is arguable whether the infinite limit of an equation is the same as the equation itself.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"It`s Wikipedia... isn`t this redundant? An article of misconceptions on a site of misconceptions?"

That`s the funny thing about Wikipedia; I don`t know why it is so often singled out for being "unreliable". It is not more or less unreliable than anything else on the internet. It is up to the reader to crosscheck/crossreference everything to make sure they are getting credible and relaible information. Only the fools who take everything they read as fact and who do not bother to do the research themselves fall victim to this.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]one of the first things was false, the one about iron maidens not being used for torture and that it was made up for 18th century exhibitions. the english did in fact invent and use it for torture,[/quote]

Can you provide references to support that? I have a bit of an interest in English history and I`ve never seen an old reference to it. All sorts of torture devices were used in medieval times and written about quite widely at the time, but I`ve never seen a medieval reference to an iron maiden. I`m not an expert, just an interested amateur, so there`s plenty I don`t know...but I`m suspicious when I haven`t seen a single old reference to it, ever.

There was a definite tendency in later times to make up stuff about medieval times. Chastity belts are a famous example.
0
Reply
Female 2,120
The one about JFK and the jam doughnut made me snort loudly.
0
Reply
Male 1,451
Volsunga, did you even read this?
.9 repeating is EXACTLY equal to 1.

Think of this this way, .3 repeating is exactly equal to 1/3

Multiply both by 3.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]um...? It`s not equal to 1 is it? 0.9999 is less than 1 .... isn`t it? [/quote]

0.9999 is less than 1.

0.9 recurring = 1. There must be an infinite number of 9`s.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]It`s Wikipedia... isn`t this redundant? An article of misconceptions on a site of misconceptions?[/quote]

Stuff on Wikipedia is not *necessarily* wrong. Some of it is wrong, some of it is right. The problem is that you can`t know in advance which is which. That`s why Wikipedia is dismissed as a source.

As far as I know, this list is right. I don`t know about the USA-specific ones and I don`t know about the movement of air past a wing, but all the rest is in line with what I already knew.

Hmm...not quite. Swann invented a light bulb before Edison, not after. The problem Swann had was that when he first worked on bulbs, in the 1860s, was he didn`t have equipment to reliably make a good vacuum. His 1860s bulbs worked, but he couldn`t make them good enough and he moved on to other ideas until, years later, he got the kit to make a good vacuum and returned to bulbs - that second go at it is the 1881 bulbs mentioned in this list.
0
Reply
Male 180
one of the first things was false, the one about iron maidens not being used for torture and that it was made up for 18th century exhibitions. the english did in fact invent and use it for torture, after that i skimmed it quickly, and i couldnt decide whether to agree with it or not, especially considering many don`t have an explanation just oretty much says nope its a miconception, not true lol
0
Reply
Male 440
Those people who are upset by the idea of humans having evolved from monkeys would be just as upset if it were apes or a common ancestor. There is no point in correcting them.
0
Reply
Male 1,557
It`s like a page of QI episode facts.


0
Reply
Male 37,888
Enjoy IAB! I found these very interesting, and like @onewhosinz suggests, if you think they`re not true, go look it up elsewhere! Wiki is just a starting point, eh?
@Volsunga: the distance is a comparatively tiny factor, eh?
0
Reply
Male 1,548
@Gerry1of1
.999... < 1 by an infinitely small amount. for practical purposes, it equals 1. Especially since in the real world, the Planck constant exists that sets a limit on how small something can be.
0
Reply
Male 47
haha look at the discussion page on this (button at the very top). I didn`t know people spent so much time arguing over this page.
0
Reply
Male 38,511
[quote]"On the question of whether .999...=1, 72% of the control group and 83% of the experimental group expressed their view that .999... is not equal to 1."
[/quote]

um...? It`s not equal to 1 is it? 0.9999 is less than 1 .... isn`t it?



math is hard
0
Reply
Male 1,548
One of these is technically wrong. The one saying that "the seasons are not regulated by the distance from the sun". While the misconception it is debunking is certainly untrue, the claim that it is solely the Earth`s tilt isn`t exactly right either. Perihelion and aphelion are out of sync with solstice and equinox and when they align certain ways, they create abnormally mild or extreme summers and winters. There`s even a specific synchronicity (that hasn`t happened in hundreds of thousands of years) that causes "summers" to be colder than "winters", though both are relatively mild.
0
Reply
Male 2,034
@onewhosinz: It`s a real shame that you`re making baseless assumptions about my work ethic.
0
Reply
Male 694
A little late to the party, Wikipedia.


0
Reply
Female 47
@ msieg007: It`s a real shame that you`re too lazy to look anywhere but Wikipedia for information.
Professors don`t discount anything JUST because it`s on Wikipedia, it is discounted because you can never tell how the information was received. If it`s true, you can find it elsewhere.
0
Reply
Male 292
just spent like 45 min reading all of those
0
Reply
Male 605
Thanks to the awesome TV series QI, I knew almost all of these.
0
Reply
Male 452
This should be a required high school course.
0
Reply
Male 66
It`s Wikipedia... isn`t this redundant? An article of misconceptions on a site of misconceptions?
0
Reply
Male 2,034
It`s a real shame every single college professor I`ve ever had is going to discount everything on that list, simply because it`s Wikipedia.
0
Reply
Male 304
bla bla bla
0
Reply
Male 15,510
"Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys,[97] chimpanzees[98] or any other modern-day primates. Instead, humans and monkeys share a common ancestor that lived about 40 million years ago."
0
Reply
Male 37,888
Link: Wiki: List Of Common Misconceptions [Rate Link] - Every human alive NEEDS to read this!
0
Reply