"Common Knowledge"

[Jas]

I was just wondering what sort of things out there which may be considered to be 'common knowledge', but are really woowoo.

An example would be of cats sitting on the face of newborn babies, smothering them. I know that this isn't true (from being at the animal shelter), but you would not believe the amount of pregnant women who come in to surrender their cats because they read about this in some parenting book!

Another would be putting vitamin E on cuts to keep them from scarring (I also thought this was true, until someone mentioned it as one of the wierd things that they used to believe!).

So I guess I wondering if anyone can think of other things which seem rational, and are widely believed, but that actually have no basis in reality. I suspect that there are a lot of things I believe, that are false, simply because I've heard them repeated numerous times, and they seem reasonable.

[teddosan]

Some of my former "common knowledge" that, after just a little investigation, turned out to be incorrect (thanks internet):

If you shave, the hair will grow back darker and thicker.

Glass in old churches is thicker at the bottom because glass flows slowly over the years.

[phildonnia]

If you haven't seen it yet, snopes has a list of this stuff:

http://www.snopes.com/spoons/oldwives/oldwives.htm

[Azrael 5]

I dont know if this isnt true but anyway...your hair and nails continue to grow when you die!!;)

[thaiboxerken]

We only use 10% of our brain.

Psychics are used by FBI/CIA/Law Enforcement.

[apoger]

Something wrong that I thought correct was how the phases of the Moon worked.

I was under the impression that the lunar phases were caused by the Earth blocking sunlight, and hence causing a curved shadow on the Moon. In these very forums I was shocked to find out that this was incorrect.

In fact the lighted portions of the moon has to do with the positions of Earth/Moon/Sun and our viewing angle.

The following is a site that has a good illustration of this: http://www.astronomynotes.com/nakedeye/s13.htm

[BillC]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
I dont know if this isnt true but anyway...your hair and nails continue to grow when you die!!;)
You're right -- it isn't true. The skin and underlying tissues shrink after death, causing the nails and hair to protrude more than before and giving the appearance of post-mortem growth.

I'll add my entry: the heart is situated well to the left of the chest cavity.

[Capsid]

I dont know if this isnt true but anyway...your hair and nails continue to grow when you die!!
I don't think this is true. My understanding is that the skin shrinks and gives the appearance that the hair and nails have grown.

[DangerousBeliefs]

That .9999999~ <> 1 (I.E. They are equal)

(DUCKS)


:D

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
That .9999999~ <> 1 (I.E. They are equal)

(DUCKS)


:D

No, but

1 = .99999~+.0000~1

[Jas]

Originally posted by apoger
Something wrong that I thought correct was how the phases of the Moon worked.

I was under the impression that the lunar phases were caused by the Earth blocking sunlight, and hence causing a curved shadow on the Moon. In these very forums I was shocked to find out that this was incorrect.

In fact the lighted portions of the moon has to do with the positions of Earth/Moon/Sun and our viewing angle.

The following is a site that has a good illustration of this: http://www.astronomynotes.com/nakedeye/s13.htm

I always though it was due to the earth blocking the sun. Obviously I was wrong.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by Jas
I always though it was due to the earth blocking the sun. Obviously I was wrong.

When the Earth blocks the Sun and casts its shadow on the Moon it's called a lunar eclipse and you can see one of those on October 28th (by the way).

[Kiwi Kid]

Originally posted by Jas
I always though it was due to the earth blocking the sun. Obviously I was wrong. It does happen occasionally, of course - a lunar eclipse. The shadow is not very sharp, though.

Here's one for me: I always thought everybody accepted that vaccination worked. Silly me.

[JPK]

Oh yeah the balencing of eggs on the equinox. You can actually do this any time.( oh yeah there is idiomotor effect involved as well, you think it is going to work now!!!) Just no one tries any other time of the year. If I may recomend, 2 books. Bad Astronomy, and Bad Medacine. Both book will make you rethink things you thought you knew.


JPK

PS wait till you learn why the full moon looks bigger near the horizon. Probably not the reason you think. Maybe so, but it was new for me.

[Skep]

One of the most popular is the idea that being exposed to cold weather gives you a cold/flu. ("Bundle up or you'll catch cold.") While colds and flu can be more popular during the colder seasons, just being in the cold doesn't appear to actually cause susceptibility.

http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fimmunology%2Fans_023.html

A big problem is that the "common knowledge" that we use every day can be flawed and when people question common knowledge they can be ridiculed. There was a study to see if breast milk was the best nutrition. Some people derided the study as a waste of money as it, indeed, did show that breast milk was best. Yet, with out questioning what we take for granted we risk being fooled for ever by misconceptions accepted as "true."

[TheBoyPaj]

One of the perks of being a parent is that you get to completely mess up your child's brain with half-remembered and often fictitious nonsense. Over the years I have often found out that a lot of my mother's received wisdom is not only false but, unlike famous old wive's tales, no one else has ever heard of it!

For example, for years I thought that the leaves of celery plants were DEADLY! (though I never thought to question why they are not removed before sale)

Touching egg shells gives you warts on your fingers (which would imply that chickens would be the most warty creatures of all)

Swallowing toothpaste gives you heart problems (though my father corrorates this, claiming that soldiers used to eat it so they could get out of active duty). Can anyone confirm this?

[Azrael 5]

Touching frogs-or is it toads-gives you warts?! I dunno about toothpaste paj,but have you seen what coke does to brass!Who needs Brasso! Wouldnt fancy drinking Brasso,though.;)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
I dont know if this isnt true but anyway...your hair and nails continue to grow when you die!!;) And beard. This is a half-truth. It does not grow, but it does get longer :eek:.

After death, the tissues, especially right under the skin, shrink, becasue water evaporating is not replaced as in a living body. This makes the skin recede from individual haies and from the nails, giving the impression that they grow.

DUH! I see several people already answered this ;).

Hans

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
For example, for years I thought that the leaves of celery plants were DEADLY! (though I never thought to question why they are not removed before sale)It's rhubarb that has deadly leaves. Easy to see how the confusion could arise:

http://food.oregonstate.edu/images/fruitveg/rhubarb/rhubarb2.jpg http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/senior/vegetabl/images/small/celery.jpg

Rhubarb's on the left, for the horticulturally impaired...

[Azrael 5]

Wow,didnt know this! In what way are they deadly?

[Ladewig]

Up until very recently, I used to believe that people read all the posts in a thread before replying. ;)

[EHocking]

Originally posted by phildonnia
If you haven't seen it yet, snopes has a list of this stuff:

http://www.snopes.com/spoons/oldwives/oldwives.htm
The alt.folklore.urban FAQ can be found here. (http://tafkac.org/afu.faq/index.html) It will dispel quite a few "commonly" known things for you. If you want to participate on usenet at afu, it's always advisable to read the FAQ first, as well as their posting guide.

[Capsid]

Wow,didnt know this! In what way are they deadly?
High concentration of oxalic acid (http://www.scs.leeds.ac.uk/cgi-bin/pfaf/arr_html?Rheum+rhaponticum&CAN=LATIND)

[steenkh]

Originally posted by apoger
I was under the impression that the lunar phases were caused by the Earth blocking sunlight, and hence causing a curved shadow on the Moon. In these very forums I was shocked to find out that this was incorrect.

Just for interest: How did you explain a gibbous moon, then?

[TragicMonkey]

The "fact" that the Coriolis Effect controls toilet flush direction, and other water-down-the-drain situations. For some reason, people really, really want to hold onto this one.

[Dragonrock]

I used to think that Elvis was dead.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by EHocking
The alt.folklore.urban FAQ can be found here. (http://tafkac.org/afu.faq/index.html) It will dispel quite a few "commonly" known things for you. If you want to participate on usenet at afu, it's always advisable to read the FAQ first, as well as their posting guide.

Even if you never expect to even read postings at alt.folklore.urban, you should go read the the FAQ because it is hilarious.

I've always wanted to begin a reply with "Sorry to inject some facts into this forum, but..."

[steenkh]

Practically all the links on that alt.folklore.urban FAQ are dead!

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by steenkh
Practically all the links on that alt.folklore.urban FAQ are dead!

Try this place (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/folklore-faq/part1/).


p.s. you'll also learn why some JREF poster use the words cow-orker and voracity.

[hgc]

Originally posted by JPK
Oh yeah the balencing of eggs on the equinox. You can actually do this any time... Oy. I was balancing eggs one fine Sep 21st years ago, and thought to call my physicist brother-in-law to ask why it happens. Over the next few days, I got calls from most of my family making fun of me.

By the way, I don't consider this woo, just bad information as yet uncorrected. If I were to persist in the belief after learning the reality, then that would be woo.

[Dr Adequate]

"Einstein said that everything was relative."
"Every cell in your body is replaced once every seven years."
Anything at all involving Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, unless the person talking is a physicist
Anything at all involving Chaos Theory., unless the person talking is a mathematician.
"Scientists have proved the existence of mitochondrial Eve." (subtle, think about it).
"... and as we are all descended from a WOMAN, that proves the primacy of the female sex." (unsubtle)
"Women think with the right hand side of their brains."
"Goldfish can't remember anything for more than seven seconds."
The words "Marie Celeste". It's "Mary", dammit.
"The Chinese use rhino horn as a cure for impotence."

and my all-time favorite:

"Scientists say that bees can't fly."

Oh, and one fallacy that's been knocking around for years: the Medicinal Benefits Of Drinking Lots Of Water. When nutritionists tell you how much water you need daily, THEY ARE INCLUDING THE WATER CONTENT OF THE FOOD YOU EAT, not to mention all the things you drink that aren't pure water.

Balancing eggs on the equinox... never heard of that one. Thanks.

[thaiboxerken]

"Good martial artists can channel their chi into attacks"

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

Oh, and one fallacy that's been knocking around for years: the Medicinal Benefits Of Drinking Lots Of Water. When nutritionists tell you how much water you need daily, THEY ARE INCLUDING THE WATER CONTENT OF THE FOOD YOU EAT, not to mention all the things you drink that aren't pure water.


I knew it! I always told my mom I got enough water from drinking soda as a kid. :D

[Ashles]

Something wrong that I thought correct was how the phases of the Moon worked.
Wow! I clicked on your link - I did not know that. But it seems so obvious now.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by apoger
Something wrong that I thought correct was how the phases of the Moon worked.

I was under the impression that the lunar phases were caused by the Earth blocking sunlight, and hence causing a curved shadow on the Moon. In these very forums I was shocked to find out that this was incorrect.

In fact the lighted portions of the moon has to do with the positions of Earth/Moon/Sun and our viewing angle.

The following is a site that has a good illustration of this: http://www.astronomynotes.com/nakedeye/s13.htm

First Time I heard this one was a couple of years ago. I didn't know that some people didn't know what caused it.

[rppa]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
"Good martial artists can channel their chi into attacks"

I'd call that one true. Just probably not in the woo-woo way that "chi masters" mean. A good martial artist focuses the forces, the leverage, and the momentum at the time and place where it will do the most good.

[Ashles]

I'd call that one true. Just probably not in the woo-woo way that "chi masters" mean. A good martial artist focuses the forces, the leverage, and the momentum at the time and place where it will do the most good.
The nuts?

[Skep]

Originally posted by rppa
I'd call that one true. Just probably not in the woo-woo way that "chi masters" mean. A good martial artist focuses the forces, the leverage, and the momentum at the time and place where it will do the most good.

I'd have to agree with the OP that it is false. By giving the martial artists the "out" that they're right even though their reasoning and all of the philosophy is wrong, just continues the error. Imagine how much better the martial artist could be if he/she focused on the actual principles involved and not some ancient nonsense.

One of the philosophical definitions of what it means "to know" something is that the thing you know must be true and you must have a valid reason for believing it. For instance, if you "know" that my wife is pregnant because you got two straight flushes in a row at your last poker game, and that always means my wife is pregnant, then you would not have a valid reason for "knowing". Likewise, believing that you can focus invisible natural energy through spiritual study, as in Tai Chi, is not a valid reason for "knowing" the best way to teach martial arts for fighting. Bruce Lee, for instance, believed that the trappings of ancient martial arts kept the arts from focusing on what actually works.

In a similar vein, I happened by a Musclemen for God type tv special in which the hugely developed athletes performed feats of strength and martial arts type stunts, like breaking stacks of concrete tiles. Of course, these athletes attributed their success to their relationship with god, not on Chi. (They omitted mentioning the daily hours at the gym or the principles of physics that make breaking stacks of concrete tiles much less difficult than you would think...) So, should we say they are right just because their belief in god allows them to work harder? I'd say that their belief in god has less to do with it than their belief in the gym.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by rppa
I'd call that one true. Just probably not in the woo-woo way that "chi masters" mean. A good martial artist focuses the forces, the leverage, and the momentum at the time and place where it will do the most good.

Let's not confuse physics with Chi.

[jambo372]

Rhubarb leaves are deadly because they contain a poison called Oxalic acid .

[Ipecac]

There was a game show sketch called "Common Knowledge" on Saturday Night Live in 1987. Very funny. Check out the transcript below.

SNL - Common Knowledge (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/87/87acommon.phtml)

[Dr Adequate]

I still can't get over the egg-balancing trick. Bow down and worship the Miracle Of The Bleeding Obvious! And I'm just amazed at all the people who didn't know how the moon works. Someone should start a Poll:" I am a sceptic who has no idea what causes the phases of the moon." A good idea to know, just in case an astrologer starts asking you trick questions, Mr Know-All.

If you look up "precession of the equinoxes" you will learn how to ask astrologers trick questions. Such as "I am an Aries. What House was the Sun in when I was born?"

Another way to embarass astrologers (yes, I've had practice) is to wait until they call you "ignorant" and then ask them to list the signs of the Zodiac in order. They can't. Then demonstrate that you can. By the way, can anyone come up with a good mnemonic? --- as the one I use, though charming, is cumbersome.

[Skep]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I still can't get over the egg-balancing trick. Bow down and worship the Miracle Of The Bleeding Obvious! And I'm just amazed at all the people who didn't know how the moon works. Someone should start a Poll:" I am a sceptic who has no idea what causes the phases of the moon." A good idea to know, just in case an astrologer starts asking you trick questions, Mr Know-All.

If you look up "precession of the equinoxes" you will learn how to ask astrologers trick questions. Such as "I am an Aries. What House was the Sun in when I was born?"

Another way to embarass astrologers (yes, I've had practice) is to wait until they call you "ignorant" and then ask them to list the signs of the Zodiac in order. They can't. Then demonstrate that you can. By the way, can anyone come up with a good mnemonic? --- as the one I use, though charming, is cumbersome.

So, since I'm more "know-it-all" than "know it," perhaps there is or should be, a handy resource with bulletproof trip ups for ones favorite irrationals. Say a script for catching "know-it-all" astrologers, homeopaths, magnetic healing advocates and various religions. I realize that most of the credulous are incapable of admitting contradiction (I know I hate to admit it), but I'd love a list of effective zingers that require them to have to deal with self contradiction or have to explain some other awkward point.

So, what are people's most effective trip ups for discussing credulity with the credulous?

Among my not so perfect attempts was asking tarot card readers at exactly what point tarot cards magically reordered themselves for purposes of the tarot reading and if it mattered who shuffled. Needless to say, these weren't really devastating questions.

[thaiboxerken]

So, what are people's most effective trip ups for discussing credulity with the credulous?

I call them gullible fools. That tends to really trip them up.

[Skep]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
So, what are people's most effective trip ups for discussing credulity with the credulous?

I call them gullible fools. That tends to really trip them up.

Not exactly a real zinger, though... And it tends to lead to the "No, you're closed minded!" "NO, YOU ARE!" type discussion.

I want something that will make them shut up and have to think for a second. Granted this is the kind of wishful thinking that makes us want to believe in magic... If only I could find a magical lamp that could help me rid the world of stupid magical thinking!

[Dr Adequate]

NB:

The Hunt of the Heavenly Host begins
with the Ram, the Bull and the Heavenly Twins
the Crab Is Followed by the Lion
the Virgin, and the Scales
the Scorpion, Archer and He-Goat
the Man who carries the water pot
and the Fish with the shining tails.

The rhyme and rhythm makes it a little easier to remember, but there must be a better way.

[Skep]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
NB:

The Hunt of the Heavenly Host begins
with the Ram, the Bull and the Heavenly Twins
the Crab Is Followed by the Lion
the Virgin, and the Scales
the Scorpion, Archer and He-Goat
the Man who carries the water pot
and the Fish with the shining tails.

The rhyme and rhythm makes it a little easier to remember, but there must be a better way.

There is a thread over at Bad Astronomy
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=261430

It includes this one, among others, from poster "Eroica"

I always use my old friend Pat G Clulsosca to help me remember the order of the thirteen constellations of the zodiac.

Pisces
aaries
taurus

Gemini

Cancer
leo
uirgo (in Latin u and v are the same)
libra
scorpius
ophiuchus
sagittarius
capricornus
aquarius

[alfaniner]

A defibrillator will jump-start a heart.

The Defibrillator files (http://www.nitcentral.com/oddsends/defibril.htm)

Neil Armstrong said his famous phrase immediately after taking that big hop down from the landing gear ladder. (No, it was a few moments later -- he only hopped onto the landing pad.)

[Dr Adequate]

"... and what he said was 'That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind'".

Skep: Of course! Ophiuchus! By the way, is there anyone out there who was born under Ophiuchus?

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by alfaniner
A defibrillator will jump-start a heart..) [/B]

This was one that, not really suprised me when I learned it, but suprised me at how often it is misunderstood. They do, sortof, jumpstart a heart, but there must be some electrical activity there. It's called a defibrillator because it primarily reorders the elctrical impulses of a heart to knock it out of fibrillation. In the movies, when you see it used on a flat-lined patient...sorry, it just don't work that way :)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by alfaniner
A defibrillator will jump-start a heart.
The Defibrillator files (http://www.nitcentral.com/oddsends/defibril.htm)
Good grief! I never knew... what a lot of claptrap there is in the world... be on your guard always...

[Skep]

Originally posted by Huntsman
This was one that, not really suprised me when I learned it, but suprised me at how often it is misunderstood. They do, sortof, jumpstart a heart, but there must be some electrical activity there. It's called a defibrillator because it primarily reorders the elctrical impulses of a heart to knock it out of fibrillation. In the movies, when you see it used on a flat-lined patient...sorry, it just don't work that way :)

What about the paddles they use when they have just transplanted a heart? Or stopped it for surgery? (Oh, alright I suppose I could just look this up...)

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Skep
What about the paddles they use when they have just transplanted a heart? Or stopped it for surgery? (Oh, alright I suppose I could just look this up...)

I'll have to double-check myself (I'm a medic, not a doctor), but I believe they do a "pacemaking" type of shock with these. Most defibs can be set to synch up with a weak rythm or to pace an unsteady rythm. I would assume that they supply certain drugs then pacemake the heart until it picks up a rythm.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
"... and what he said was 'That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind'".Classic Gahan Wilson cartoon shows a gigantic blob alien creature stepping out of its flying saucer, crushing skyscrapers underfoot and sending the panicked population screaming off in all directions.

Caption: "That's one small step for a znargh; one giant leap for znarghkind!"

[Kiwi Kid]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Swallowing toothpaste gives you heart problems (though my father corrorates this, claiming that soldiers used to eat it so they could get out of active duty). Can anyone confirm this? A bit like chewing gum staying in your gut for years if you swallow it?

Not sure about heart problems but toothpaste tubes once contained lead. Ask any Roman about how good lead is for your health.

Lead poisoning disease (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001653.htm)

[Jyera]

"The Sun comes out in the day, and
the Moon comes out in the night."

It is taken to imply the moon ONLY comes out at night.
But the moon does "come out" during the day.

Many story books continue to perpetuate this fallacy.

Taught in more than one ways to pre-school children.
Eg. Of Opposites ... sun vs moon, day vs night.

[Capsid]

'That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind'".
Now I understood the situation to be that he MEANT to say "a man" but in his excitement got it wrong and left out the "a". I always felt he hesitated between "one small step for man" and the rest of it because he knew he messed up. But I expect he had other things on his mind.

[Kiwi Kid]

Originally posted by Capsid
Now I understood the situation to be that he MEANT to say "a man" but in his excitement got it wrong and left out the "a". I always felt he hesitated between "one small step for man" and the rest of it because he knew he messed up. But I expect he had other things on his mind. Probably worried about sinking into the green cheese.:p

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Jyera
"The Sun comes out in the day, and
the Moon comes out in the night."

It is taken to imply the moon ONLY comes out at night.
But the moon does "come out" during the day.

Many story books continue to perpetuate this fallacy.

Taught in more than one ways to pre-school children.
Eg. Of Opposites ... sun vs moon, day vs night.
I once found my little sister crying because she couldn't do her science homework. They were, er, studying the phases of the moon, and the class had been assigned, for a month, to look out of their bedroom windows every night just before they went to bed and record what phase the moon was in...

The science teacher had done Biology at university. And was a dolt.

Good thread, by the way. More, I want more! I'm collecting these things.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Capsid
Now I understood the situation to be that he MEANT to say "a man" but in his excitement got it wrong and left out the "a". I always felt he hesitated between "one small step for man" and the rest of it because he knew he messed up. But I expect he had other things on his mind. If you listen carefully, he hesitates slightly between "one" and "giant". Like what flashed through his mind was, "...one small step for man, one (dammit... okay, just finish it) giant leap for mankind."

[Dr Adequate]

More lies my teachers told me:

"The reason why there are so many street names ending in 'gate' is that in medieval times they led to various gates in the city walls."

(Hint: if you've never seen any street name ending in "gate" you are not living in the former Danelaw.)

"If you stand a lighted candle in a dish of water and put an inverted glass over it, the water level rises, proving that the candle is consuming oxygen."

(Figure it out. Or try it out, and watch carefully what actually happens.)

[The Mighty Thor]

Ridiculous things told by Primary teachers in a non-denominational school in Scotland:

History is so-called because time is dated by the birth of Christ. She explained it was indeed, HIS-STORY.

The Bible says 'sex' is to be between a married man and woman. We were not to think about, or discuss sex until we got married. (This from an old spinster headmistress, after someone had, erm, misbehaved.)

The sun rises due East and sets due West.

An empty metal cigar tube is a worthy gift for a teacher to give to pupils on birthdays.

You MUST drink your milk.

Don't ever use the word 'nice'.

There must be massive tunnels built below a space rocket launchpad to accomodate 'the exhaust'.

The Biblical miracles were real, although the feeding of the 5000 might have come about because everybody decided to share the picnics they were hiding.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
The Biblical miracles were real, although the feeding of the 5000 might have come about because everybody decided to share the picnics they were hiding.

That's a disappointing possibility. One of the few appeals of Christianity is that Jesus catered his own events, and even stepped in to supply the booze at a local wedding on short notice. That's good service, although I bet people kept inviting him to weddings in the hope of saving on the reception costs.

[Explorer]

"We only use 10% of our brain."

Said the boxing Thai.

By "we" are you referring to the skeptics on this board?

[Explorer]

Originally posted by Capsid
Now I understood the situation to be that he MEANT to say "a man" but in his excitement got it wrong and left out the "a". I always felt he hesitated between "one small step for man" and the rest of it because he knew he messed up. But I expect he had other things on his mind.

That was just stage nerves and studio lights!

[Capsid]

The belt of intense radiation between the Earth and moon is called the Van Halen belt. Kerrraannng!

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
There must be massive tunnels built below a space rocket launchpad to accomodate 'the exhaust'.
Because otherwise the Third Law of Motion would kick in, and we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?

Edited to add: "Radiation is harmful."

[Khonshu]

That reading in semi-poor lighting would damage your eyesight.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by BPSCG
If you listen carefully, he hesitates slightly between "one" and "giant". Like what flashed through his mind was, "...one small step for man, one (dammit... okay, just finish it) giant leap for mankind."
Eddie Izzard did a very funny routine based on this speech,I wont post it as it wouldnt be funny on a screen perhaps.Hilarious though.;)

[Ashles]

That you mustn't start a sentence with the word 'And'.

[Dr Adequate]

And that every sentence contains a verb. What utter rubbish.

(Do you notice what I did there, children...?)

And bizarrely, that poems must be written with a capital letter at the start of each line (optional) and a comma at the end of each line (just plain wrong.)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Explorer
"We only use 10% of our brain."

Said the boxing Thai.

By "we" are you referring to the skeptics on this board?

Skeptics understand that the 10% claim is a myth. So no, it would be the believers that think they only use 10% of their brains.......and they could be right!

[CurtC]

Originally posted by Jyera
"The Sun comes out in the day, and
the Moon comes out in the night."The comedian Steven Wright used to say something like "how come the Moon is sometimes out in the day, but the Sun is never out at *night*?"

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And that every sentence contains a verb. What utter rubbish.


It's not rubbish. You (like most people) simply say/write a lot of things that aren't sentences.

[Skep]

Originally posted by Capsid
Now I understood the situation to be that he MEANT to say "a man" but in his excitement got it wrong and left out the "a". I always felt he hesitated between "one small step for man" and the rest of it because he knew he messed up. But I expect he had other things on his mind.

Actually, I had heard that the short word "a" was squelched by the radio system.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by new drkitten
It's not rubbish. You (like most people) simply say/write a lot of things that aren't sentences.

Oho, my friend, you have just joined the world's most pointless religious cult.

You are a Prescriptive Grammatician.

(Edited to insert original quote)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Oho, my friend, you have just joined the world's most pointless religious cult.

You are a Prescriptive Grammatician.



Hardly. I don't care whether or not you speak in complete sentences (I'm hardly prescriptive), but I do at least know what the word means.

If I tell you that a bicycle, by definition, has two wheels, and then you point at a car and tell me that it's a bicycle, which of us is wrong? Am I being a Prescriptive Transportation Engineer?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by new drkitten but slightly edited by me
If I tell you that a bicycle, by definition, has two wheels, and then you point at a bicycle with training wheels and tell me that it's a bicycle, which of us is wrong? Am I being a Prescriptive Transportation Engineer?

[Skep]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Oho, my friend, you have just joined the world's most pointless religious cult.

You are a Prescriptive Grammatician.

(Edited to insert original quote)

While amusing, this would seem not to be true. drkitten did not tell you how to write English, rather drkitten correctly observed that the things you are calling sentences are actually sentence fragments or incomplete sentences. This observation is not prescriptive.

[Dr Adequate]

Well, it's a question of how you define "sentence". If you google, you'll find that most definitions don't say you have to have a verb, although I have spotted one which does.

[Skep]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Well, it's a question of how you define "sentence". If you google, you'll find that most definitions don't say you have to have a verb, although I have spotted one which does.

It still stands that drkitten's post was not prescriptive.

Also, a fine point (not really aimed at you), neither Google or "the internet" are sources of information. Saying you found a definition on the internet is like saying you got one in the mail. The internet is a conduit for information, not a source. The website you connect with is the source. This is just one of those pet peeves.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by Skep
It still stands that drkitten's post was not prescriptive.

Also, a fine point (not really aimed at you), neither Google or "the internet" are sources of information. Saying you found a definition on the internet is like saying you got one in the mail. The internet is a conduit for information, not a source. The website you connect with is the source. This is just one of those pet peeves.

I'd more compare Google with a library. You would still say "Go to the library and check." It's close enough to the source that it could be said that way.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Skep
It still stands that drkitten's post was not prescriptive.
Fair enough. No worries. Enough said? No comment. Ta-ta for now.

[thaiboxerken]

Someone at the karateforum just used the "science says it's impossible for bees to fly" BS on me just now! LOL. Is this psirony?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Yaotl
I'd more compare Google with a library. You would still say "Go to the library and check." It's close enough to the source that it could be said that way.

Yes, but the problem with either of those is that "the library" isn't a source, either. There are too many books in the library -- and most of them are d*mned poor sources. ("Oh, look! I just found a book that claims that Sherlock Holmes was Jack the Ripper!" "Yes, dear. You found it in the 'fiction' section.") At least the library has a clearly labelled "fiction" section, but Google/the Internet doesn't even have that. Any wing-nut belief, with or without "evidence" to support it, can be found therein.

Even "published" dictionaries have those problems. As William Buckley put it (approximately)-- when they write a dictionary, they ask people like me what to put in them.

[Skep]

Originally posted by Yaotl
I'd more compare Google with a library. You would still say "Go to the library and check." It's close enough to the source that it could be said that way.

What drkitten said.

Also, the library analogy is a good analogy for the internet, but either way you aren't actually referring to the real source of info such that it can be definitively checked and verified. Imagine a research paper with a slew of foot notes that simply said (1) The Library (2) The Internet (3) ibid (4) ibid. That wouldn’t be useful at all, yet people do this all of the time when they say they found info on Google or on the internet. Did the info come from SylviaBrown.com or from Randi.org? Even then, the exact page is critical. I could quote 1inChrist and truthfully say I read it on the Randi website.

The lack of specificity regarding the provenance of information gleaned from the internet is especially important to thinkers and skeptics since woo woo sites out number skeptical sites by a preposterous proportion (this is my educated guess)--really, I read it on the internet.

[Skep]

Originally posted by new drkitten
At least the library has a clearly labelled "fiction" section, but Google/the Internet doesn't even have that. Any wing-nut belief, with or without "evidence" to support it, can be found therein.

I'd say the non-fiction section in the library isn't a good indicator of truth, after all, all of the credulous books on psychics, the Bermuda triangle and homeopathy are in the "non-fiction" section. Just because something is in the non-fiction section doesn't mean it isn't made up.

BTW
Dr Adequate,
I do understand your point about sentences, but because their are multiple uses and meanings for the word "sentence" (since dictionaries are now reportive not prescriptive), your point about sentences not needing a verb can be considered right or wrong--it just isn't one of those unbeatable "gottchas."

Edited: to make crappy grammar slightly less crappy.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Yes, but the problem with either of those is that "the library" isn't a source, either. There are too many books in the library -- and most of them are d*mned poor sources. ("Oh, look! I just found a book that claims that Sherlock Holmes was Jack the Ripper!" "Yes, dear. You found it in the 'fiction' section.") At least the library has a clearly labelled "fiction" section, but Google/the Internet doesn't even have that. Any wing-nut belief, with or without "evidence" to support it, can be found therein.

Even "published" dictionaries have those problems. As William Buckley put it (approximately)-- when they write a dictionary, they ask people like me what to put in them.

Fair enough.

[Jas]

I was watching Mythbusters last night, and they poured sugur into a gastank and....nothing happened. I totally though that sugar in the gastank would completely destroy your engine.

[The Mighty Thor]

Carrots help you see in the dark???

It may be an urban legend (apropos), but I heard this was promoted during WWII, to encourage the deprived Britishers to grow and eat homegrown vegetables.

Masturbation makes you go blind!

[My wife just said (very quietly) "I thought it made you go deaf" And I said "Pardon?"]:D

[The Mighty Thor]

There was less crime and violence in "the good ol' days".

[Skep]

Originally posted by Jas
I was watching Mythbusters last night, and they poured sugur into a gastank and....nothing happened. I totally though that sugar in the gastank would completely destroy your engine.

Mythbusters is my favorite Discovery Channel show and it is a great jumping off point for seeing if some myths are plausible. However, their testing methodology is more than a little dodgy. They run one test on one engine and they declare the myth "busted." They really aren't thorough enough to declare anything "busted" with real authority. They only thing they usually prove is that they couldn't do it. Even when something does work, they often don't use the proper control experiment. For instance, they tested if cola and a tin foil scrubber could clean a chrome bumper, but they used chrome polish as the control! They didn't even bother to see if just scrubbing with tinfoil and water would work.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by jambo372
Rhubarb leaves are deadly because they contain a poison called Oxalic acid . Only if you eat enough of it to choke a goat (5 kg).

A list of oxalic acid containing foods, from here (http://www.cloudnet.com/~djeans/Asides/OxalicAcid.htm)
Plant foods with high concentrations of oxalic acid (over 200 ppm) include (but are not limited to): lamb's-quarter, buckwheat, star fruit, black pepper, purslane, poppy seeds, rhubarb, tea, spinach, plantains, cocoa and chocolate, ginger, almonds, cashews, garden sorrel, mustard greens, bell peppers, sweet potatoes, soybeans, tomatillos, beets and beet greens, oats, pumpkin, cabbage, green beans, mango, eggplant, tomatoes, lentils, and parsnips.

[TheBoyPaj]

"If you stand a lighted candle in a dish of water and put an inverted glass over it, the water level rises, proving that the candle is consuming oxygen."

(Figure it out. Or try it out, and watch carefully what actually happens.)

Now you come to mention it, I always assumed that too. But now I think about it more closely, the oxygen is just being converted to CO2. And the air is being heated, so that would expand, so it should bubble out from under the jar.

Is that right?

[Skep]

Poinsettias are toxic to cats and people.

--This persistent myth is completely untrue, but the a google search for the above phrase will garner a very mixed bag of links, mostly incorrect.* If you gorged your self you might be able to give yourself a stomachache but you aren’t going to hurt yourself. And for those who would say that "well, it is a little bit toxic." I'd remind them that water is toxic in high enough doses.

http://www.ecke.com/new1/corp_story/press_poin_pois.asp

*Note, this is a correct example of citing google as a source of information. I'm giving the search terms and speaking about the totality of the resultant search rather than information from just one of the links.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And that every sentence contains a verb. What utter rubbish.

(Do you notice what I did there, children...?)

Yes, but you got it wrong. It should be "What utter rubbish!"

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Now you come to mention it, I always assumed that too. But now I think about it more closely, the oxygen is just being converted to CO2. And the air is being heated, so that would expand, so it should bubble out from under the jar.

Is that right?
Not quite. Half-right, yes, the oxygen is being converted to C02. The thing is that since you light the candle before you put the glass around it, the air around the candle is already hot and expanded. So when the candle goes out, the air can cool and contract, causing a drop of pressure in the glass, and sucking up the water to equalise the pressure in and outside the glass.

There's a slightly less loopy version of the "10% of your brain" myth, which just says that "Scientists don't know what 90% of the brain does." Probably once they didn't, but I think they do now...

Finding things on the internet: unless you're going to be all prescriptive about language, you can certainly use the internet to find out what words mean, because they mean what the majority of people think they mean. For a more authoratative source, I looked in the OED and they don't mention the necessity of a verb. I'd rather believe them than my primary school teacher. So I stand pat. If you ask me "Verbless sentences --- good or bad?" I would reply: "My dear fellow, the more the merrier".

epkeke: was that Prescriptive Grammar? I take your point, but personally, I don't like exclamation marks. As someone-or-other said: "Using exclamation marks is like laughing at your own jokes."

About carrots --- they do contain beta-carotene, which is a precursor for vitamin A. Deficiency of this causes night-blindness, but it doesn't follow that an excess of it makes you much better at seeing in the dark. Now I heard from Some Bloke In A Pub that the rumor about fighter pilots and carrots was disinformation put out by the MOD to keep the Hun from figuring out that we'd invented radar, and that this was why our fighter pilots could find their bombers at night. I can't source this. Anyone?

Finally, these little gems:

"Eskimos live at the North Pole and have over a hundred different words for snow."
"In ancient times, people thought the world was flat."
"Robin Hood lived in Sherwood Forest, near Nottingham."

[Skep]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Not quite. Half-right, yes, the oxygen is being converted to C02. The thing is that since you light the candle before you put the glass around it, the air around the candle is already hot and expanded. So when the candle goes out, the air can cool and contract, causing a drop of pressure in the glass, and sucking up the water to equalise the pressure in and outside the glass.

Finding things on the internet: unless you're going to be all prescriptive about language, you can certainly use the internet to find out what words mean, because they mean what the majority of people think they mean. For a more authoratative source, I looked in the OED and they don't mention the necessity of a verb. I'd rather believe them than my primary school teacher. So I stand pat. If you ask me "Verbless sentences --- good or bad?" I would reply: "My dear fellow, the more the merrier".


Well, you have definitely intrigued me with the candle and Bell jar experiment. I want to try this now.

As for finding info on the internet, I never said that it was wrong to do so, only that to attribute your find to Google or "The Internet" is so vague that you might as well say "I read somewhere." If you cite a specific link, we can check for ourselves and also evaluate the credibility of the source.

I also don't disagree that you have valid argument that a sentence doesn't need a verb to be called a sentence, only that it is a debatable point, i.e. one that there are reasonable arguments on either side of.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And that every sentence contains a verb. What utter rubbish.


Who is this What character that you refer to and why do you command him to say the word "rubbish"?

I knew I'd find a verb if I looked hard enough.

[Azrael 5]

[i]
Finally, these little gems:

"Eskimos live at the North Pole and have over a hundred different words for snow."
"In ancient times, people thought the world was flat."
"Robin Hood lived in Sherwood Forest, near Nottingham." [/B]
The odd thing about Robin Hood is he is supposedly buried in woodland near here-Huddersfield West Yorkshire UK.Fair enough,you may think.According to the legend he fired an arrow from his death bed and was buried where it fell! Thats some arrow that can travel some 70 odd miles!:)

[Skep]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
The odd thing about Robin Hood is he is supposedly buried in woodland near here-Huddersfield West Yorkshire UK.Fair enough,you may think.According to the legend he fired an arrow from his death bed and was buried where it fell! Thats some arrow that can travel some 70 odd miles!:)

Not if it landed in the back of a hay cart!

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Skep
Not if it landed in the back of a hay cart!
Or a bleedin' peasant! Back in those days, they could go for a good hundred leagues with an arrow in the loaf without even snivilin'.
Try to tell the kids that today, eh?

[stingy get]

About the cat smothering babies thing:

When I was a kid, (in the 70's) I remember there was a poster in our doctors surgery. It showed a cat sitting on a pram, (heavy, old type with big wheels and a hood) . The poster was encouraging people to put a net screen over the prams hood to prevent cats getting in.

The campaign was apparrently started because people were in the habit of putting babies into prams and leaving them outside the back door to have a nap. They'd do this even on cold days to let the baby have some freash air. Cats like to find a warm place to sleep during the day - ever seen a cat on a warm car bonnet? So, apparently, there was a problem with cats climbing onto the pram and finding a nice, warm place to rest - sleeping on the babies face. Hence the campaign for parents to put nets over the hoods of prams.

I can't actually present any cases where this happened, or whether some babies were found dead outside and it was assumed that a cat had suffocated them. Up-until-now I'd just always thought it was true.

Does anyone know anything more about this?

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Or a bleedin' peasant! Back in those days, they could go for a good hundred leagues with an arrow in the loaf without even snivilin'.
Try to tell the kids that today, eh?
And they wont believe you.....

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
The odd thing about Robin Hood is he is supposedly buried in woodland near here-Huddersfield West Yorkshire UK.Fair enough,you may think.According to the legend he fired an arrow from his death bed and was buried where it fell! Thats some arrow that can travel some 70 odd miles!:)
Robin Hood is indeed a real person, or rather two real people, who never met, and only one of whom was called Robin Hood. He's buried in Yorkshire.

The one who was called Robin Hood was a Yorkshireman. Where the confusion creeps in is this: his arch-enemy was the Sherriff of Nottingham. It says so in the original ballads, which also place him in Yorkshire. What's going on here? Well, the original ballads place him in the reign of King Edward (number unspecified). In the time of Edward II, after the Great Northern Revolt, the Sherriff of Nottingham was brought up North to clear the outlaws out of... Yorkshire. The relocation of Robin Hood by 70 miles to Sherwood was caused, we may guess, by peasants largely ignorant of history trying to make the legend make more sense.

"The Great Wall Of China is visible from the Moon."

[Blondin]

Originally posted by Ipecac
There was a game show sketch called "Common Knowledge" on Saturday Night Live in 1987. Very funny. Check out the transcript below.

SNL - Common Knowledge (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/87/87acommon.phtml)

Quite funny coming from SNL. Not so funny when you see almost the same level of ignorance coming from Jay Leno's "Jaywalk All-Stars".

[Ashles]

In ancient times, people thought the world was flat
Well people DID believe the Earth was flat, but it was just a very long time ago, much longer than people think.

You can't claim no-one EVER thought the world was flat because they kind of did:

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. (http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html)

Some more info (http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm)

The consensus seems to be that:
"A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere."

I think the claim is more that Medieval people thought the world was flat, or else "everyone before Columbus". These claims are totally false.

But "In ancient times" yes they did believe it was flat, if you mean pre 1000 BC.

Edited: To add a space. One lousy single space.

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, I meant "ancient" and not "prehistoric". Though there is, as they say, always one. Let us not forget the name of Cosmas Indicopleustes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04404a.htm).

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Ashles
Well people DID believe the Earth was flat, but it was just a very long time ago, much longer than people think.

You can't claim no-one EVER thought the world was flat because they kind of did:

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. (http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html)

Some more info (http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm)

The consensus seems to be that:
"A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere."

I think the claim is more that Medieval people thought the world was flat, or else "everyone before Columbus". These claims are totally false.

But "In ancient times" yes they did believe it was flat, if you mean pre 1000 BC.

Edited: To add a space. One lousy single space.

I think some medieval Christians argued for a flat Earth because it says in the Bible about someone being able to see the four corners of the Earth.

???

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
...
"The Great Wall Of China is visible from the Moon."

I've heard this one as "The Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from space." (aside from the artificial city made for The Truman Show...)

[Ashles]

Yes, I meant "ancient" and not "prehistoric". Though there is, as they say, always one.
Well ancient goes back quite a way. 600BC (roughly) is where the round earth was first taken scentifically seriously, but was by no means instantly globally accepted right there and then.
And not everything before pythagoras was prehistoric.

I'm just trying to be precise - we don't want any further disinformation on this, of all threads, do we?

[Jas]

Originally posted by stingy get
About the cat smothering babies thing:

When I was a kid, (in the 70's) I remember there was a poster in our doctors surgery. It showed a cat sitting on a pram, (heavy, old type with big wheels and a hood) . The poster was encouraging people to put a net screen over the prams hood to prevent cats getting in.

The campaign was apparrently started because people were in the habit of putting babies into prams and leaving them outside the back door to have a nap. They'd do this even on cold days to let the baby have some freash air. Cats like to find a warm place to sleep during the day - ever seen a cat on a warm car bonnet? So, apparently, there was a problem with cats climbing onto the pram and finding a nice, warm place to rest - sleeping on the babies face. Hence the campaign for parents to put nets over the hoods of prams.

I can't actually present any cases where this happened, or whether some babies were found dead outside and it was assumed that a cat had suffocated them. Up-until-now I'd just always thought it was true.

Does anyone know anything more about this?

Never heard about those ones. Although according to snopes, it's never happened. Of course, this was before my time.

The thing people don't realize is that cats, for the most part, dislike babies. They're noisy, and have bad smelling breath (contrary to what people think, they aren't attracted to the 'milk smell'). They generally tend to stay far away from them, and probably wouldn't think of one of them as a good place to nap.


http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/catsuck.htm

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Ashles
And not everything before pythagoras was prehistoric.

I'm just trying to be precise - we don't want any further disinformation on this, of all threads, do we?
No, we don't. And what does prehistoric mean? "Before recorded history". And do Greek historical records go back much before Pythagoras...? I think you just inadvertently played "'Prehistoric' means the same as 'Stone Age'". Do not cross me, for I am Adequate.

"'Chemicals' means the same as 'synthetic chemicals' and 'organic' means 'naturally occurring'"

[Ashles]

Adequate schmadequate.


Whatever that means.

[Skep]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
[B"'Chemicals' means the same as 'synthetic chemicals' and 'organic' means 'naturally occurring'" [/B]

Nope, depends on the context. Organic Chemistry contradicts both of your edicts since it is about chemistry that involves carbon compounds, whether synthetic or naturally occuring.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Skep
Nope, depends on the context. Organic Chemistry contradicts both of your edicts since it is about chemistry that involves carbon compounds, whether synthetic or naturally occuring.
Excuse me, bozo, this is a thread devoted to things which are generally believed but aren't true. That was one of them... (sigh)

[Skep]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Excuse me, bozo, this is a thread devoted to things which are generally believed but aren't true. That was one of them... (sigh)

Bozo? What kind of clown do you take me for? Never mind, but in any case, the ad hominum is uncalled for.

Indeed you are right in that I thought you believed the statement to be true. While the statement was in quotes, it appeared by itself, without comment at the bottom of your post. I took it too be your new sig.

[LostAngeles]

OK, the good Dr.'s bit about goldfish having little memory reminded me of one.

Sometime ago on MTV's Cartoon Sushi, there was a short about the goldfish (involving baseball) and a pair featuring Broccoli. You see, Broccoli is the smartest vegetable with an I.Q. of 10. The first one involved a quiz show (his answers were all "broccoli") and the sequel with Broccoli as a cab driver. I'd explain them, but they're funnier if you see them.

So yes, broccoli has an I.Q. of 10, goldfish have no memory.

I do remember something my mother had told me a dozen times that I had dismissed as a UL, until I actually found out it worked recently. Sadly, I can't remember it.

[Soapy Sam]

teddosan's comment that glass does not flow got me wondering, as like many folk, I was sure it did.

This article is worth a look.

http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

I'm afraid I remain a believer in glass flow. I've seen it in too many rocks. Low strain rate, elevated temperature, a little water, pressure and lots and lots of time will devitrify any glass.

I grant that it is pretty irrelevant on a scale of human years, so I'll accept the mediaeval window explanation that they put the thick end on the bottom to start with.

Interesting. You certainly learn more when you're wrong to start with.

[Kiwi Kid]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
teddosan's comment that glass does not flow got me wondering, as like many folk, I was sure it did.

This article is worth a look.

http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

I'm afraid I remain a believer in glass flow. I've seen it in too many rocks. Low strain rate, elevated temperature, a little water, pressure and lots and lots of time will devitrify any glass.

I grant that it is pretty irrelevant on a scale of human years, so I'll accept the mediaeval window explanation that they put the thick end on the bottom to start with.

Interesting. You certainly learn more when you're wrong to start with. Damn! I always believed that one. I guess the wavy appearance of older glass lent strength to the myth. Anyway, armed with this information I can now embarass some people I know.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Skep
Bozo? What kind of clown do you take me for? Never mind, but in any case, the ad hominum is uncalled for.
It's only an "ad hominem argument" if I rest my case on your being a bozo. Otherwise it's just an insult. "Uncalled for"... You Corrected Dr Adequate When He Was Right. You Must Die!

"The Chinese use rhino horn as an aphrodisiac."

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
"The Chinese use rhino horn as an aphrodisiac."

Are you saying that rhino horn is incorrectly believed to be an aphrodisiac or that it is incorrect to believe that the chinese think that way?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
Are you saying that rhino horn is incorrectly believed to be an aphrodisiac or that it is incorrect to believe that the chinese think that way?
Last I heard, they use it to treat fevers and convulsions, not impotence.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Robin Hood is indeed a real person, or rather two real people, who never met, and only one of whom was called Robin Hood. He's buried in Yorkshire.

The one who was called Robin Hood was a Yorkshireman. Where the confusion creeps in is this: his arch-enemy was the Sherriff of Nottingham. It says so in the original ballads, which also place him in Yorkshire. What's going on here? Well, the original ballads place him in the reign of King Edward (number unspecified). In the time of Edward II, after the Great Northern Revolt, the Sherriff of Nottingham was brought up North to clear the outlaws out of... Yorkshire. The relocation of Robin Hood by 70 miles to Sherwood was caused, we may guess, by peasants largely ignorant of history trying to make the legend make more sense.

"The Great Wall Of China is visible from the Moon."
I find that very interesting as I didnt know it.I dont think any locals know it either.Thus why theres a statue of a man with a bow and arrow above the grave,lol
Sorry I meant a man saying I grow marrows! Lol

[Azrael 5]

What about these: buttered toast always lands buttered side down!
Cats will always land on their from a fall!
What about a watched pot/kettle never boils!(one of my Grandparents favourite sayings);)

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
What about these: buttered toast always lands buttered side down!
Some student engineers in Denmark once took a hard look at this and found that at normal table/handheld heights and with the normal rotational energy released when you accidentally drop a buttered bread, it will only have time to complete half a revolution, and accordingly, it lands on the buttered side (assuming that it was kept with the buttered side upwards before it was dropped)!


What about a watched pot/kettle never boils!(one of my Grandparents favourite sayings);)
This is definitely true. I always fuss when I have to cook food, and the cooking takes much longer than when my wife does it. For instance, it takes twice as long for me to boil potatoes!
(This convenient fact has ensured that I am usually sent out of the kitchen when cooking goes on. Can I apply for a million?)

(Edited to fix tags)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
What about a watched pot/kettle never boils!(one of my Grandparents favourite sayings);)
This is because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle [starts talking rubbish and frothing at the mouth...]

[stingy get]

Jas

I read the snopes bit, and I agree with about cat's avoiding babies - if they're awake. However, the babies outside were put there during their naptime, not being a 'cat person' I'm not sure how they behave around sleeping kids, (although my daughter snores loud enough to scare anything off!).

Thinking about it a bit more, I've never seen any campaigns warning people with babies and cats to put a net on a cot.

Maybe some sudden infant deaths in this situation were speculatively connected to cats, since they are the only common animal which can easily get into and out of gardens. Perhaps the old superstitions played a part in suggesting a culprit?

Interesting thread.

[Neutron Jack]

Originally posted by Jas
An example would be of cats sitting on the face of newborn babies, smothering them. I know that this isn't true (from being at the animal shelter) Can you explain how "being at the animal shelter" has helped you to "know that this isn't true"? Do you regularly perform experiments at the animal shelter with cats and newborn babies?

I'm making no assertion about whether it's true or not--I just want to know why you think that being at the shelter gives you extra knowledge about cats sitting on babies.

Here's my entry: "Hitler was a vegetarian."

[JMEJAM]

There's a slightly less loopy version of the "10% of your brain" myth, which just says that "Scientists don't know what 90% of the brain does." Probably once they didn't, but I think they do now...


Not really at least not fully.

90% of the brain's cells are glial cells, not neurons. Much research is being done to determine what they do.

Jeff

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by JMEJAM
90% of the brain's cells are glial cells, not neurons. Much research is being done to determine what they do.
Thanks. This is educational, isn't it?

[Ashles]

They seem to know to a certain extent what glial cells do:

Glial cells (http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/glialcells.html)

[Azrael 5]

What about a cat falling,landing on its feet in a cot and smothering a baby.

[Ashles]

What about a cat falling,landing on its feet in a cot and smothering a baby.
If you buttered its back it would be sure to land on its feet.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Ashles
If you buttered its back it would be sure to land on its feet.
No, the two principles would cancel out, and it would hang in mid-air, mewing plaintively.

What happens if you do it with Schrodinger's cat?

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Ashles
If you buttered its back it would be sure to land on its feet.

Nooo, if you butter its back both sides want to hit the ground first and so the cat just hovers, everybody knows that, how do you think the perpetual motion machines work :rolleyes:

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
No, the two principles would cancel out, and it would hang in mid-air, mewing plaintively.

What happens if you do it with Schrodinger's cat?

Swine - beat me to it!!

[Azrael 5]

Running when it begins to rain doesnt stop you getting wet!;)

[Azrael 5]

On the subject of cats,when cat owners move home,to stop the cat straying to its former home,put butter on its paws.They are so ditracted for this time they forget they've moved.
My mind is kicking all these up from my childhood,Ive got no idea what Im talking about!:D

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Ashles
They seem to know to a certain extent what glial cells do:

Glial cells (http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/glialcells.html)
OK, back on the list it goes.

"Oligodendrocytes". I like it.

[Jas]

Originally posted by stingy get
Jas

I read the snopes bit, and I agree with about cat's avoiding babies - if they're awake. However, the babies outside were put there during their naptime, not being a 'cat person' I'm not sure how they behave around sleeping kids, (although my daughter snores loud enough to scare anything off!).

Thinking about it a bit more, I've never seen any campaigns warning people with babies and cats to put a net on a cot.

Maybe some sudden infant deaths in this situation were speculatively connected to cats, since they are the only common animal which can easily get into and out of gardens. Perhaps the old superstitions played a part in suggesting a culprit?

Interesting thread.

It probably was due to SIDS being mistakenly attributed to cats, seeing as they tended to get the short end of the stick most of the time anyway.

[Skep]

Originally posted by Jas
It probably was due to SIDS being mistakenly attributed to cats, seeing as they tended to get the short end of the stick most of the time anyway.

Clearly this calls for a controlled experiment. We'll need babies, cats and plush stuffed cats as a control...

I have no knowledge of whether the baby thing is a myth. But I do know that cats are attracted to warm places (they'll climb up into warm engine compartments, sleep in opened dryers, people's laps, etc.) and they like snuggly beds. I also know that my cat has few qualms about sleeping on my face when it is cold, so doesn't seem like the cats seeping on babies thing can be dismissed out of hand.

What is the literature on this issue?

[Jas]

Originally posted by Neutron Jack
Can you explain how "being at the animal shelter" has helped you to "know that this isn't true"? Do you regularly perform experiments at the animal shelter with cats and newborn babies?

I'm making no assertion about whether it's true or not--I just want to know why you think that being at the shelter gives you extra knowledge about cats sitting on babies.

Here's my entry: "Hitler was a vegetarian."

At the Calgary Humane Society, I work in the Admissions dept, which means that all animals that come into the shelter (be they surrenders, strays, seized, or dead) go through us. We get up to 120 animals a day, mainly cats. I've had up to 15 cats in one day surrendered by women who were pregnant (or claimed to be), who thought that once the baby was born, the cat would kill it (the reason differs, either through jealousy, or being attracted to the smell of milk on the babies breath, but it's always through being smothered).

Often we try to explain that there is not a single known case of this happening, that we have no record of it at our shelter, or at any affiliated shelter (be it an SPCA or Humane Society). In fact, no one has any record of it ever happening. Being at the shelter gives me extra knowledge about cats and their interactions with people, because I am exposed to them daily, as well as working in contact with vets, constables and behaviourists on a daily basis. And because the reason for surrendering an animal is recorded, those reasons are researched (in this case, since so many animals are surrendered for that reason, and since we are trying to help keep animals with their owners, we need to find out the truth as to whether that's a real risk or not), quite extensively by our staff. Often people are using the baby thing as an excuse to get rid of an animal that they don't care much about anyway, but sometimes they are genuinely heartbroken over having to give up their feline companion, because they think it to be true. In that case, it is the responsibility of the admitting staff to have accurate information.

However, if I weren't an volunteer (now employee) there, I would probably think that cats do indeed smother babies, as it is a commonly held assumption, and it often published in parenting/baby books.

[Skep]

Originally posted by Jas
Often we try to explain that there is not a single known case of this happening, that we have no record of it at our shelter, or at any affiliated shelter (be it an SPCA or Humane Society). In fact, no one has any record of it ever happening.

However, if I weren't an volunteer (now employee) there, I would probably think that cats do indeed smother babies, as it is a commonly held assumption, and it often published in parenting/baby books.

It would seem that there are no verified cases of a cat smothering a baby, but there are verified cases of parents smothering babies. So your baby is safer with your cat than it is with you....

[Hellbound]

Another common knowledge that came up in another thread:

"If you're dehydrated, you need to replace electrolytes and water, so take some salt or sugar."

This is wrong. It's also incorrect, errant, and not right. To conclude, it's false.

Dehydration, specifically, is the loss of fluids. Generally electrolyte levels are fine, unless the person has been skipping meals as well as drinks, or is dehydrated due to severe vomiting and diarhea. As a medic, we'd carry three types of IV solution in our bags: Dextrose 5% (sugar water), Ringer's Lactate (water with added electrolytes), and Saline (.9% salt solution, matches the bodies salt level). For dehydration, we'd give Saline. Not Ringers, not Dextrose. Why? Because the Saline matches the level of salt that the body is supposed to have, and is absorbed into tissue much faster than other solutions. Likewise, plain water is better than salt water, sugar water, Gatorade, etc for recovering from dehydration. In fact, many of these solutions are more likely to cause nausea and vomiting, thus adding no fluid to the patients system.


Now, quite often elecrolyte loss and dehydration occur together, but this usually occurs when the patient has been skipping meals as well. Generally, the person needs only water. If it's a medical emergency due to electrolyte imbalance, then you need to get medical help immediately and not bother with trying to find salt or sugar to put in the water. Severe electrolyte imbalance causes brain swelling, which can quickly lead to death of cells in the outer layers. This is a life threatening condition that can lead to a vegetative state rather quickly (killing the parts of the brain that provide higher function). Eventually it will cause enough swelling and pressure to stop the medulla as well, causing death.

P.S.-just for the curious, Ringer's is generally given in cases of dehydration due to vomiting or as a vlume replacement in severe bleeding. These are cases where electrolyte levels fall. Dextrose is basically used only in open head wounds. Dextrose helps reduce brain swelling, and can aid longevity in open head wounds. IN closed head wounds (i.e.-no skin broken), any IV fluid is likely to raise internal pressure and increase intra-cranial swelling...not a good thing. We leave that for the docs.

[RamblingOnwards]

"The prefixes sept-, oct-, nov-, dec- are two months out because they inserted the months July and August. " (they renamed the fifth and six months from Quintilis and Sextillus. The year used to start in March)

"Santa Claus's typical red and white appearance was actually the result of a coke ad campaign"

"White is the traditional colour of a wedding dress" (colours have gone in and out a fashion and have had various significances attached to them. White = purity or joy or mourning , green = fertility or mourning, brown = religious marriage, black = marrying a widower, red = fertility, blue = purity [sources dubious]. Most probable choice? Whatever colour your best dress happened to be.)

[Benguin]

How about dehydration due to alcohol consumption? Assuming it hasn't resulted in vomiting ...

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Benguin
How about dehydration due to alcohol consumption? Assuming it hasn't resulted in vomiting ...

Well, there's not much loss of electrolytes without vomiting, blood loss, or diarhea...sweating doesn't lose enough to matter unless you've skipped meals (you'd dehydrate due to sweating before you'd worry about electrolytes). This case would be water, as well (normal saline for us medics). Much of the morning after symptoms are due to dehydration...a couple liters of normal saline IV would do wonders for us the next day ;).

IN any case, the dehydration due to alcohol is because the body metabolizes the alcohol into sugars (a process that requires water). So, no need to add any more sugar even assuming the idea was true. Just as an aside, sugar isn't an electrolyte. It's just fuel. Salt provides electrolytes, as do most foods. So adding sugar actually wouldn't replace electrolytes in any case, and could also reduce the effectiveness of any water (the body uses water to metabolize sugars and flush out the waste, as well).

[Dr Adequate]

"Coca Cola is so acidic that it can disolve a tooth within 24 hours."

This sounds like rubbish to me, but if anyone has a can of Coke, a tooth, and a clock, we could do some Real Science. It's the shortage of spare teeth that's stopping me from doing it myself...

Anyone?

[Ashles]

All you ever wanted to know about Coke legends:

Fun legends about Coca Cola (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cokelore.asp)

[Skep]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
"Coca Cola is so acidic that it can disolve a tooth within 24 hours."

This sounds like rubbish to me, but if anyone has a can of Coke, a tooth, and a clock, we could do some Real Science. It's the shortage of spare teeth that's stopping me from doing it myself...

Anyone?

Well, you could just try filling your mouth with coke for 24hrs....

The snopes article and the Mythbusters guys say this is false. But, the Mythbuster's tooth did get turned brown and it did look a little misshapen. I remember trying this as a kid and I recall it working, but that was a baby tooth and there might have been some adult--ala tooth fairy--intervention with the experiment (it is just so hard to rule out fraud these days.)

So, I'm wondering if the 24 hour requirement is the only part that makes this a myth.

[Rinky]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
What about a watched pot/kettle never boils!(one of my Grandparents favourite sayings);)

This is true especially if you keep taking the lid off to see whether the stuff's already boiling or not. ;)

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
"Coca Cola is so acidic that it can disolve a tooth within 24 hours."

Personally, I like to point out to the health police who use this one that a tooth will take less time to dissolve in freshly squeezed orange juice than it will in coke. STAY AWAY FROM THAT ORANGE JUICE!

[Skep]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
Personally, I like to point out to the health police who use this one that a tooth will take less time to dissolve in freshly squeezed orange juice than it will in coke. STAY AWAY FROM THAT ORANGE JUICE!

I don't think we should dis the "health police." While we don't need to live in a Health Police State, the info is informative. The problems we have with tooth decay are greatly increased as a result of our modern diet. So, it is good to know what things we should look out for. One study found that frequent diet cola drinkers showed significant tooth enamel erosion. Don't you think we'd be better off dentally without soda? At the very least we should be accurately informed, and the food industry has no intention of doing that.

And I'd like to point out that there was a recent study that found tea can be acidic as well...

[Hellbound]

Skep,

Edited because I didn't read the word "diet" above.

I will now retire to give myself a severe flogging.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Skep
One study found that frequent diet cola drinkers showed significant tooth enamel erosion.
Alarming. Am I safer if I use a straw? Actually... am I safer if I drink non-diet coke? I only drink the diet version on the grounds that the sugar in real coke might be bad for my teeth...

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
No, but

1 = .99999~+.0000~1

Uhh... sorry, buddy. 1 = .9999... is in fact true. Also, there is no such number as .000~1 (but if one had to interpret it, it would mean precisely zero).

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Of all the bullsh!t she told us about, my favorite piece was this--when Columbus landed in the West Indies, the natives were unable to see his ships. Why? Because they had never seen ships before, therefore, ships did not exist. It took the wisdom of the shaman, who saw the abnormal rippling of the water in the bay to "see" the ships and convince his fellow natives of their existence. The whole point being that you can change your reality.
I'd heard something similar about Cook and Australia. Definitely bogus?

Spookily relevant to flyboy217's sig, though.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Spookily relevant to flyboy217's sig, though.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Here's the way I see it. Perhaps saying that they *couldn't* see the ships is stretching it. It's less unfathomable, however, that they *didn't* see the ships. I'll give you a few examples of what I mean.

The first one is personal. I pride myself on being highly observant, but occasionally even I (gasp) fail to notice obvious things. Case in point:

http://www.besplatne-stvari.com/igre/Zabava/pingpong_matrix/
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/matrixpong.wmv

After watching that video once and marveling at how cool the special effects were, I thought I'd watch it again. I then discovered that, lo and behold, they're not special effects--it's just guys in black holding everything up! How could I miss them, even when they were standing against white backgrounds? Who knows. It's safe to say that I didn't "see" the men the first time around, even though my eyes obviously "saw" them.

Here's a good article detailing better what I mean:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fconnected%2F2004%2F05%2F05%2Fecf gorilla05.xml


In one experiment, people who were walking across a college campus were asked by a stranger for directions. During the resulting chat, two men carrying a wooden door passed between the stranger and the subjects. After the door went by, the subjects were asked if they had noticed anything change.

Half of those tested failed to notice that, as the door passed by, the stranger had been substituted with a man who was of different height, of different build and who sounded different. He was also wearing different clothes.

Despite the fact that the subjects had talked to the stranger for 10-15 seconds before the swap, half of them did not detect that, after the passing of the door, they had ended up speaking to a different person. This phenomenon, called change blindness, highlights how we see much less than we think we do.




Working with Christopher Chabris at Harvard University, Simons came up with another demonstration that has now become a classic, based on a videotape of a handful of people playing basketball. They played the tape to subjects and asked them to count the passes made by one of the teams.

Around half failed to spot a woman dressed in a gorilla suit who walked slowly across the scene for nine seconds, even though this hairy interloper had passed between the players and stopped to face the camera and thump her chest.

However, if people were simply asked to view the tape, they noticed the gorilla easily. The effect is so striking that some of them refused to accept they were looking at the same tape and thought that it was a different version of the video, one edited to include the ape.

Prof Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire recently repeated this experiment before a live audience in London (as part of his Theatre of Science, performed with the author Dr Simon Singh) and found that only 10 per cent of the 400 or so people who saw the show managed to spot the gorilla.


Not quite the same thing as the Columbus bit, I know. But I find this kind of thing interesting enough to have the quote in my sig.

[Azrael 5]

There is an advert at the moment for a soft drink which uses the black art principle(which is what that is in the video)it appears as if limbs come away from the body etc.I dont know if it was invented by them,but magicians use the effect.There is an eastern European(?) magician who has a whole act using it,very good it is too.;)

[joyrex]

There is plenty of scifi entertainment that presents starships and other objects making sounds in space.

[KFCA]

It's Common Knowledge that when people die, "they're in a better place"...at least that's what I overheard three times at the most recent funeral I attended.

[Azrael 5]

Dead is better?! Blimey thats going some.;)

[Jyera]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
"Coca Cola is so acidic that it can disolve a tooth within 24 hours."

This sounds like rubbish to me, but if anyone has a can of Coke, a tooth, and a clock, we could do some Real Science. It's the shortage of spare teeth that's stopping me from doing it myself...

Anyone? Many seven-years-old children are in a very good position to contribute a tooth or two towards proving such nonsense.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Jyera
Many seven-years-old children are in a very good position to contribute a tooth or two towards proving such nonsense.
It didn't say human teeth. Think of all those undigestible bits of cows' teeth that routinely get ground up with the other normally inedible parts of the cow to produce Mac Buggers.

Cheap high shul Science Project.
Take the teeth of some slaughtered kine (no cloven hooves, mind you) and place them randomly into beakers that either contain a placebo solution of the same colour and ph as Coke or Coke for over a day. An unsighted observer will record the results. An equally unsighted statistician will analyze the results.

[Ashles]

I've got a good one:

If you are in space and you are thrown out of an airlock or your space suit is removed you will:
Instantly freeze
Instantly boil
Instantly explode
Instantly have all your veins and eyeballs explode and look a bad mess
etc.

Actually the truth is rather more mundane and surprising:

If you go out without your spacesuit this is what happens (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html)

[sackett]

it was common knowledge that:

a cup full of Coca Cola would dissolve a galvanized roofing nail in a week.

if you coughed, belched, and farted at the same time, you'd die.

there was this little girl that put a bean in her ear, and they operated and operated, but they couldn't never get it out.

there was this little girl that put a rubber band around her wrist and wouldn't take it off, so it puffed up all around it and they had to cut her hand clear off.

there was this little boy that was petting a cat while it ate, and the cat turned around and scratched his hand and he got blood poisoning and they had to cut his hand clear off.

[alfaniner]

"Ice cubes freeze faster if you use hot water instead of cold water. It all has to do with the entropy of the molecules."

[rppa]

Originally posted by alfaniner
"Ice cubes freeze faster if you use hot water instead of cold water...

That one is actually true, under the right circumstances

...It all has to do with the entropy of the molecules."

That part is pseudoscience babble.

Cecil Adams tackles the topic:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_098b

Experimental findings: hot tap water freezes more slowly than cold water. Boiling water freezes faster.

The sci.physics FAQ has a pretty authoritative article on the effect, now known to physicists as the Mpemba effect, after a high-school student (!) who rediscovered something in 1969 that had been observed 500 years before and then forgotten.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/hot_water.html

Summary: It's been reproduced experimentally many times in controlled experiments, but the exact explanation among the five competing explanations (evaporation, dissolved gases, convection, surroundings, and supercooling) is not known. Most likely some combination. Note that the word entropy is never mentioned.

[Skep]

Originally posted by joyrex
There is plenty of scifi entertainment that presents starships and other objects making sounds in space.

I'd have to say that that is more irritating in shows that pretend to be "scientific." However, as an occasional apologist for style I could posit that the ships are giving off tremendous amounts of radiating gasses out of their engines that are carrying the shockwaves to the “camera crew� which is watching the scene.


there was this little boy that was petting a cat while it ate, and the cat turned around and scratched his hand and he got blood poisoning and they had to cut his hand clear off.
This story is not the kind that can be arbitrarily ruled out. While it may be apocryphal, scratches or bites can lead to infections, which can lead to gangrene which can, in extreme cases, require amputation.

On a related note:
There really is something called “Cat Scratch Fever� and it can come from cat scratches. More generally known as Cat Scratch Disease,

Catscratch disease (CSD) is a self-limiting infectious disease characterized by edema and pain in the lymph nodes (ie, regional lymphadenopathy, lymphadenitis). Symptoms can vary from mild to severe and may include malaise, anorexia, or both. Approximately 75% of cases occur from September through March. The first description is credited to Henri Parinaud, who referenced the condition in French medical literature in 1889. Dr Robert DebrÈ was the first to recognize the cat as a vector for this disorder and coined the term catscratch disease in 1931.
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic84.htm

[rppa]

Originally posted by joyrex
There is plenty of scifi entertainment that presents starships and other objects making sounds in space.

I was a trekkie back when the original "Star Trek" was the only thing in the franchise. I read Gene Roddenberry's behind-the-scenes book and he talked about this. The starship in the opening credits was originally silent, and they just found that aesthetically it really lacked something. So they deliberately sacrificed scientific for artistic merit, and added the "whoosh" sound.

I was more bothered by the bridge being rocked back *and forth* when the ship was hit by armaments. You might get an acceleration in one direction from the impact. What made it go the other way?

[Skep]

Originally posted by rppa
I was more bothered by the bridge being rocked back *and forth* when the ship was hit by armaments. You might get an acceleration in one direction from the impact. What made it go the other way?

--Especially since they had artificial gravity and "inertial dampening."

[rppa]

Originally posted by joyrex
There is plenty of scifi entertainment that presents starships and other objects making sounds in space.

I was a trekkie back when the original "Star Trek" was the only thing in the franchise. I read Gene Roddenberry's behind-the-scenes book and he talked about this. The starship in the opening credits was originally silent, and they just found that aesthetically it really lacked something. So they deliberately sacrificed scientific for artistic merit, and added the "whoosh" sound.

I was more bothered by the bridge being rocked back *and forth* when the ship was hit by armaments. You might get an acceleration in one direction from the impact. What made it go the other way?

[Azrael 5]

Why on Time Tunnel did Tony and Doug never get beamed back to their own time(people could be beamed to join them)and why did no-one ever question their courdory slacks.
Not relevant to topic as such,but it was sci-fi,and is no doubt full of holes(aside from time holes,natch):D

[Jyera]

I followed the links ...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/hot_water.html
Quoted from the above link ...

" Mpemba's story in particular provides a dramatic parable against making snap judgements about what is impossible."

"It was not reintroduced to the scientific community until 1969, 500 years after Marliani's experiment, and more than two millennia after Aristotle's "Meteorologica I" "

" The story of its rediscovery by a Tanzanian high school student named Mpemba is written up in the New Scientist [4]. The story provides a dramatic parable cautioning scientists and teachers against dismissing the observations of non-scientists and against making quick judgements about what is impossible."

Q1:
Is there a scientific/rational/logical explanation, as to why is it that, after nearly 35years (1969-2004), science has not yet been able to explain Mpemba's effect conclusively?

Q2:
Is there any commercial/Industrial application based on "Mpemba effect"?

[Jyera]

Originally posted by Ashles
I've got a good one:

If you are in space and you are thrown out of an airlock or your space suit is removed you will:
Instantly freeze
Instantly boil
Instantly explode
Instantly have all your veins and eyeballs explode and look a bad mess
etc.

Actually the truth is rather more mundane and surprising:

If you go out without your spacesuit this is what happens (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html)

Yes, this is a good one.
Now I'm a little embarassed. I once watched a movie and comment that one of the space scene as ridiculous and unscientific.
It featured two guys fighting outside a space station unprotected, and unharmed by vacumn.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by rppa
I was a trekkie back when the original "Star Trek" was the only thing in the franchise. I read Gene Roddenberry's behind-the-scenes book and he talked about this. The starship in the opening credits was originally silent, and they just found that aesthetically it really lacked something. So they deliberately sacrificed scientific for artistic merit, and added the "whoosh" sound.

I was more bothered by the bridge being rocked back *and forth* when the ship was hit by armaments. You might get an acceleration in one direction from the impact. What made it go the other way?
Back then there was a distinction between trekkies (who wore vulcan ears to cons) and trekkers, who didn't.
And the bridge rocking schtick - it's easy to rock the camera back and forth and have the crew react appropriately.
Ernie Kovaks used to play with such effects, long ago.

[Jeff Corey]

[i]Originally posted by Jyera Q1:
Is there a scientific/rational/logical explanation, as to why is it that, after nearly 35years (1969-2004), science has not yet been able to explain Mpemba's effect conclusively? [/B]
In one google, I was able to get pages on all of the factors that have been shown to produce the effect. One is that hot water has fewer dissolved gasses that slow down the freezing process. Another is that as water freezes in a container, a skin of ice forms at the top, which insulates the water and slows freezing. Warmer water doesn't do that.
It is important to note that the effect only occurs within a certain range of temperatures.
If you want to make ice for your beverage, it would freeze faster if you put water in your ice cube tray at 1 degree C, rather than 99 degrees C, in your freezer.

[Jyera]

Many pages talked about the mpemba effect and cited many factors. But most put it as factors and do not cite any single or primary factors as conclusive as the cause of the effect.

Except this site which cited supercooling as the main reason.

This site talked about the Mpemba effect as one of the an anomalies of water.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/explan4.html#mpemba
It talked about clustering of water. Is this credible?

[exarch]

Originally posted by Skep
Originally posted by rppa
I'd call that one true. Just probably not in the woo-woo way that "chi masters" mean. A good martial artist focuses the forces, the leverage, and the momentum at the time and place where it will do the most good.
I'd have to agree with the OP that it is false. By giving the martial artists the "out" that they're right even though their reasoning and all of the philosophy is wrong, just continues the error. Imagine how much better the martial artist could be if he/she focused on the actual principles involved and not some ancient nonsense.That's what he said though, isn't it? Through focussing on mechanical principles like leverage, centre of gravity, direction of forces, knowing a thing or two about body mechanics, etc... a martial artist can do a lot more damage. Simply because the woowoo people think it has to do with energies doesn't change the fact that they CAN do more damage by simply doing it all correct. Getting it "exactly right" though, takes a hell of a lot of practice.

So it may not be the flow of chi, but that was just their interpretation way back when of the observed facts that a person standing a certain way could exert more force.

So the idea that "martial artists can do more damage" is not wrong, they're just not "using their chi" to do so :)

[exarch]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
In one google, I was able to get pages on all of the factors that have been shown to produce the effect. One is that hot water has fewer dissolved gasses that slow down the freezing process. Another is that as water freezes in a container, a skin of ice forms at the top, which insulates the water and slows freezing. Warmer water doesn't do that.
It is important to note that the effect only occurs within a certain range of temperatures.
If you want to make ice for your beverage, it would freeze faster if you put water in your ice cube tray at 1 degree C, rather than 99 degrees C, in your freezer.IIRC, plain water is at its densest (and thus heaviest) at around 4 degrees Celsius. So water that's warmer would rise to the surface to replace the colder water.
Conversely, ice is also lighter than water, so it also rises to the surface to replace the unfrozen water.

In other words, it seems like it would depend where the cold source is situated relative to the water surface (in as much as you could actually talk of a cold "source" rather than a heat extraction point).

I'm sure there's a very complex flow going on inside the water while it's freezing from a temperature above 4 degrees Celsius.

Originally posted bySkep
--Especially since they had artificial gravity and "inertial dampening."Actually, I think they explained that as the inertial dampening field lagging behind :D

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
"The Great Wall Of China is visible from the Moon."
Just read a biography of L Ron Hubbard (http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm). He thought the G.W. of C. was visible from Mars... mind you, he thought a lot of other things too.

Has anyone mentioned: "Lead pencils contain lead."

(Edited to improve spelling)

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by exarch
Actually, I think they explained that as the inertial dampening field lagging behind :D

You have to admire Star Trek as a beautiful example of rationalisation after the fact.

They had a shuttle in episode z, so why didn't they use it in episode x? Umm.... the Enterprise was upgraded after episode y, and they added a shuttle at that point.

Why don't they ever add any seatbelts? Umm... the officers in charge thought it wasn't cool.

[rppa]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Back then there was a distinction between trekkies (who wore vulcan ears to cons) and trekkers, who didn't.

I guess that makes me a trekker then, since I never owned Vulcan ears. And I guess only a trekkie would know the distinction, or care. I did go to one con, but I was kind of embarrassed at some of the goings-on. (Enjoyed the game of Dungeons and Dragons though, and my first screening of the Star Wars takeoff "Hardware Wars").

And the bridge rocking schtick - it's easy to rock the camera back and forth and have the crew react appropriately.

Yeah, I know. And "it's easy/cheap to do" is also why an amazing number of civilizations in the galaxy seem to look like Earth in periods for which there might happen to be a lot of costumes available in the storage closet. I knew all that. But it still bugged me.

The Roddenberry book talked about just how limited the budget was. It's amazing they managed to do any science-fiction at all. A mark of the genius of the writers and producers.

[rppa]

Originally posted by Jyera
Is there a scientific/rational/logical explanation, as to why is it that, after nearly 35years (1969-2004), science has not yet been able to explain Mpemba's effect conclusively?

Low level of interest. It's interesting enough and easy enough to do that you can do the experiment with an amateur setup. Harder to justify spending professional time and equipment on, especially if your time and equipment is paid by somebody else's grant. It probably won't uncover any fundamentally new physics when explained, so it's not publishable in a research journal.

Still, it's quite interesting and most physicists would be interested in the results if somebody manages to take the time to come up with a definitive explanation.

There are a lot of these funny little physics effects in everyday life that don't quite rise to the level of justifying a research lab's time, but are not quite explained anyway. For instance, I don't think it's fully resolved whether the dents on a golf ball help the flight by increasing or by decreasing turbulence.

These seem like wide-open opportunities for an amateur to make his/her mark.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
You have to admire Star Trek as a beautiful example of rationalisation after the fact.

They had a shuttle in episode z, so why didn't they use it in episode x? Umm.... the Enterprise was upgraded after episode y, and they added a shuttle at that point.

Why don't they ever add any seatbelts? Umm... the officers in charge thought it wasn't cool.
Startrek is inerrant. (http://winace.andkon.com/st_contradictions_refuted.htm)

[CurtC]

Originally posted by rppa
There are a lot of these funny little physics effects in everyday life that don't quite rise to the level of justifying a research lab's time, but are not quite explained anyway.As another example, why does a shower curtain come in towards the shower? Lots of contradictory explanations.

[Skep]

Originally posted by exarch
]I'd have to agree with the OP that it is false. By giving the martial artists the "out" that they're right even though their reasoning and all of the philosophy is wrong, just continues the error. Imagine how much better the martial artist could be if he/she focused on the actual principles involved and not some ancient nonsense.That's what he said though, isn't it? Through focussing on mechanical principles like leverage, centre of gravity, direction of forces, knowing a thing or two about body mechanics, etc... a martial artist can do a lot more damage. Simply because the woowoo people think it has to do with energies doesn't change the fact that they CAN do more damage by simply doing it all correct. Getting it "exactly right" though, takes a hell of a lot of practice.

So it may not be the flow of chi, but that was just their interpretation way back when of the observed facts that a person standing a certain way could exert more force.

So the idea that "martial artists can do more damage" is not wrong, they're just not "using their chi" to do so :)
I disagree because the premise was "martial artists can do more damage using their chi". This is false. They don't use chi and there is no chi—this vital understanding of what is from what isn’t is key. That is part of what Bruce Lee was advocating, getting away from the superstition of martial arts to distill what actually worked, and you can’t do that if you are convinced that it is the chi that makes it work.

It is like me saying my martial arts practice is better when I take homeopathic medication in conjunction with doing everything else right. The homeopathic medicine would actually have nothing to do with my success. Likewise, the belief in chi has nothing to do with the proper mechanics of martial arts. Or you could talk about combining structural engineering with feng shui. The feng shui would do nothing for the bridge except mislead people about what was important in designing a bridge.

The problem is that martial artists who attribute their success to the focus of "Chi" are using the wrong model. While the "chi" centered practice may mimic the real world up to a point, there is a point at which the "chi" model does not mimic the real world and any practice based on that model is flawed.

I remember taking a class where the instructor, a revered "Grandmaster" told us that we would get more oxygen by inhaling through our noses than through our mouths. There was no question that the man was a brilliant fighter, but it is easy for talented people to mis-attribute the mechanisms of their own success and inadvertently mislead their students.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Startrek is inerrant. (http://winace.andkon.com/st_contradictions_refuted.htm)

I have seen the light! Thank you!

[Dr Adequate]

"A light year is a measure of time"
"A quantum leap is a very large change"
"The black stone in Mecca is called the Kaaba"
" 'Virgin birth' means 'immaculate conception' "
"You can't prove that something's impossible"

And would everyone who uses the phrase "small but finite probability" please stop. Thank you.

[Dr Adequate]

BUMP.

Goldfinger and "skin suffocation" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52215)

I liked this thread. Such a lot of stuff we think we know because The Fat Bloke In The Pub told us. Anyone got any more?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
"The Great Wall Of China is visible from the Moon."

That one is true though. Of course, it requires a telescope.

[plindboe]

Another popular myth: "Bottled water is healthier/tastier than tap water".

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Has anyone mentioned: "Lead pencils contain lead." Did you know that you can tatoo yourself with a pencil? When i was 8 I had an accident where I jammed a pencil into my hand and the lead broke off. I couldn't get it all out. I just forgot about it because I was always getting scratches and bruises. Then I remebered lead poisoning and when crying to my dad. He explained that lead was once used to write with and is poisonous but modern pencils actually use graphite instead of lead. There was no risk of lead poisoning. So I played around with using his lead bullets to make drawings. Anyway, the graphite stayed and to this day I have a little gray mark "tatoo" on my hand from that day in 2nd grade. :)

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by plindboe
Another popular myth: "Bottled water is healthier/tastier than tap water". Depends on where you get your tap water from. I doubt that bottled water is really any significantly heathier. But around here the tap water isn't very tasty. If you want decent tasting water you have to filter it yourself (I use Britta) or buy bottled. When I was in college, the local water plant had some problem and for about a week or two they put out water that they said was OK to drink but was absolutely nasty--very sulphric. You couldn't drink the water or anything made with it (which in the cafeteria meant alost everything--coffee, juice, soda pop, etc.) Even showering in the stuff was nasty.

But most towns have tap water as good as bottled water. In those cases I think there are some people that think the bottled stuff is better when it really isn't. :)

[Zep]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
No, but

1 = .99999~+.0000~1 Oh PLEASE don't start that again! :)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by plindboe
That one is true though. Of course, it requires a telescope. Yeah...?

Show me the pictures.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Yeah...?

Show me the pictures. The thing that opened my eyes on the "Great Wall from space" deal is that someone explained that US highways are actually wider than the Great Wall (at least in most places). Maybe the is some color difference. Obvoiusly this would be limited to "space" and not the moon or Mars (ha ha). I have never seen pictues from space that show the great wall or highways, but it seems reasaonable that highways would show up before the Great Wall.

[Jorghnassen]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
Depends on where you get your tap water from. I doubt that bottled water is really any significantly heathier. But around here the tap water isn't very tasty. If you want decent tasting water you have to filter it yourself (I use Britta) or buy bottled. When I was in college, the local water plant had some problem and for about a week or two they put out water that they said was OK to drink but was absolutely nasty--very sulphric. You couldn't drink the water or anything made with it (which in the cafeteria meant alost everything--coffee, juice, soda pop, etc.) Even showering in the stuff was nasty.

But most towns have tap water as good as bottled water. In those cases I think there are some people that think the bottled stuff is better when it really isn't. :)

I'd add that it depends on the bottled water too. Some bottled water is quite literally tap water that has gone through some filter.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
That .9999999~ <> 1 (I.E. They are equal)

(DUCKS)


:D

This can actually be proven, but it's been years since I saw the proof.

Vitamin C does not cure colds. It was a bad double blind study that led to the positive results back in the 70's.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by voodoochile
This can actually be proven, but it's been years since I saw the proof.
...


Welcome!!

You're probably too young to remember, but this topic produced on this forum a seemingly endless thread which attracted flames, trolls, and other assorted trouble from all corners, and nearly started a civil war.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Welcome!!

You're probably too young to remember, but this topic produced on this forum a seemingly endless thread which attracted flames, trolls, and other assorted trouble from all corners, and nearly started a civil war.

Thanks. Yeah, I got that impression from finishing the thread. I didn't realize until after I replied that this was an older thread which had recently been brought back to life.

I actually had a math teacher who made us do the proof back in AP Calc many many years ago. Fortunately for me, Dad had a PHD in math. :D

[Jas]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
Did you know that you can tatoo yourself with a pencil? When i was 8 I had an accident where I jammed a pencil into my hand and the lead broke off. I couldn't get it all out. I just forgot about it because I was always getting scratches and bruises. Then I remebered lead poisoning and when crying to my dad. He explained that lead was once used to write with and is poisonous but modern pencils actually use graphite instead of lead. There was no risk of lead poisoning. So I played around with using his lead bullets to make drawings. Anyway, the graphite stayed and to this day I have a little gray mark "tatoo" on my hand from that day in 2nd grade. :)

The exact same thing happened to me when I was about that age as well (except in my thigh), for weeks I thought I was going to die a slow, painful death. I still have the mark on my leg.

[KFCA]

I recall reading something in the newspaper last year that it's unknown where the "rule" that good health requires drinking eight 8 oz. glasses of water daily. When some research people tried to track this statement down recently, they found it apparently first showed up in some "scientific" paper written during World War II, but exactly how the 8 glasses was arrved at was not clear or whether this number was arrived at off the top of one person's head.

Does anybody know anymore about this?

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by KFCA
I recall reading something in the newspaper last year that it's unknown where the "rule" that good health requires drinking eight 8 oz. glasses of water daily. When some research people tried to track this statement down recently, they found it apparently first showed up in some "scientific" paper written during World War II, but exactly how the 8 glasses was arrved at was not clear or whether this number was arrived at off the top of one person's head.

Does anybody know anymore about this?

IIRC, the author also said that most people get those same liquids in their coffee, soda, etc. and that one doesn't have to add 8 glasses on top of the other drinks one consumes.

[JPK]

Originally posted by plindboe
Another popular myth: "Bottled water is healthier/tastier than tap water".

People forget that floride is added to most tap water in the USA for a reason. What about bottled water? I realize many bottled water companies are just botteling tap water and sometime filtering it. Does this still contain floride? If not is bottled water really healthier?
I love to cook and like to use Kosher salt or sea salt. Regular table salt has iodine added to it for a reason as well. This is not in most kosher or sea salts. Something to think about as well.

JPK

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by KFCA
I recall reading something in the newspaper last year that it's unknown where the "rule" that good health requires drinking eight 8 oz. glasses of water daily. ...
Does anybody know anymore about this?

IIRC, this was based on the amount of water you get from a hospital IV drip in a typical day.

I also suspect that it may have something to do with recommendations for backpacking or hiking. In this situation, you would need to consume much more water, and also be more aware of how much water you might need.

Here's the snopesification on the topic:
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/water.htm

[JLam]

Originally posted by JPK
I love to cook and like to use Kosher salt or sea salt. Regular table salt has iodine added to it for a reason as well. This is not in most kosher or sea salts. Something to think about as well.


I am an avid cook myself, and I prefer sea salt and kosher salt to regular table salt. First of all, it is easier to control when dropping pinches of it into a pan. Secondly, when used for searing, it helps create a nice crust on the outisde of the meat. Regular salt simply dissolves too fast to help create a nice crust on a steak. Lastly I think kosher and sea salts just taste better. Table salt has iodine and other additives to keep it from clumping, though it's true that the distinctions in the flavor are for the most part lost in the cooking process.

I don't have a salt shaker on my kitchen table. My rule is that if it needs salt after it's been served, it was probably prepared wrong.

Wait...what were we talking about again???

[FramerDave]

It amazes me how many otherwise intelligent people believe that old thing about toilets or bathtubs swirling in opposite directions depending on whether you are in the northern or southern hemisphere. And they just refuse to believe otherwise even when given an explanation.

Same with copper bracelets and magnets.

[ReFLeX]

This one I'm not sure: "Women's moods correlate with their menstrual cycle."

My source is my Intro Psych book (Myers 7th ed. 2003), it had a section quoting from a study on PMS that found no correlation between women's reported mood and menstruation. I can dig it out and quote it but I wondered what sources other people knew about for this.
Women become annoyed when I mention this for some reason...

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
This one I'm not sure: "Women's moods correlate with their menstrual cycle."

My source is my Intro Psych book (Myers 7th ed. 2003), it had a section quoting from a study on PMS that found no correlation between women's reported mood and menstruation. I can dig it out and quote it but I wondered what sources other people knew about for this.
Women become annoyed when I mention this for some reason...

Hormonal cycles have been linked to fluctuations in brain chemistry - particularly epilepsy - at least my Father's Wife had this problem and it seemed to be something she learned from her doctor.

I can't comment on the rest of it. I know in many case, menstration can lead to painful cramps and it isn't easy to be nice to people when you are in pain, so it may not be a physical reaction to the chemical changes that causes some women to be more prone to rage at that time of the month, but a reaction to uncomfortable symptoms brought about by the chemical changes. Having never had a period in my life, I admit I am purely speculating. Having had two girlfriends who suffered extreme mood swings during their menstrul cycles, I have seen at least some annecdotal evidence that something is going on.

Please be gentle with me... I'm only trying to have a discussion...

[plindboe]

Originally posted by FramerDave
It amazes me how many otherwise intelligent people believe that old thing about toilets or bathtubs swirling in opposite directions depending on whether you are in the northern or southern hemisphere. And they just refuse to believe otherwise even when given an explanation.

This myth is constantly being reinforced through the media so it's quite understandable that people hang on to that one. The Coriolis effect is real enough, so with limited scientific information the myth isn't really illogical.

Of course if people hang on to the belief when presented with better evidence, then the logic goes out the window. ;)

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by plindboe
The Coriolis effect is real enough, so with limited scientific information the myth isn't really illogical.

But in a toilet the flow is clearly directed by which way the jets are pointed, that's just common sense...

"...a woman who feels tense the day before the onset of her period may attribute the tension to her being premenstrual - the so-called premenstrual syndrome (PMS). But if the woman feels similarly tense a week later or does not feel tense the day her next period is about to start, she may be less likely to notice and remember these disconfirming instances."

[plindboe]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
But in a toilet the flow is clearly directed by which way the jets are pointed, that's just common sense...

There's more to it than that. Fill a sink with water and pull the plug, and you will always see the water flow the same way out every time, even if you manually try to push the water the opposite direction. As far as I understand, the way the water flows is determined by the way the sink is formed.

[ReFLeX]

I said Toilet, not sink. The issue is prominently presented on the Simpsons, where there is a device in place on the Australian toilet in the American Embassy to reverse the toilet's flow direction, when really the vortex in the toilet is created completely by the toilet's design, and nothing to do with hemispheres. So why wouldn't they just install a toilet with the jets flushing in the other direction? Who knows if Southern/Northern hemisphere toilets actually do spin in opposite directions, or if there is not difference among toilets in the same hemisphere? I would be very surprised if they are consistent by hemisphere.

However, with the sink, the design of the sink will determine direction of flow, yes, but also the position of the faucet, and especially pre-existing vortices that are byproducts of the above. You can also more easily create movement in the water with your hands. So fill the sink with water and pull the plug, and you will always see that spinning the water before pulling the plug will indeed determine the flow direction. Supposing static faucet/drain positions, amount the sink is filled and time elapsed since running the water are all the same, then you would find the sink always draining the same way, but the reason for this is that the same currents would be consistently created, not that you can't change the direction of flow.