Scientific and mathematical inaccuracies, misconceptions and errors that get under your skin

[CorvusFerreum]

Well, reading this thread here in The Escapist [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.387618-Historical-facts-and-popular-representations-of-histrical-figures-that-are-wrong?page=1] [..]

2) Gambler's fallacy. Okay, I understand that probability is unintuitive. But after a couple of centuries of teh theory it should be obvious that there is a thing called independant probabiity. No, if you just threw a coin and it was heads, it doesn't matter to the probability that the next one is heads.
[...]

YOU LIE! One day some fuckwit rolled away all my good numbers on my favorite d20 and now I don't hit shit in DnD.

Gambler's fallacy is one that annoys me quite a bit. We like to call it Role-player's fallacy actually, after those times when you're convinced the universe owes you a natural twenty after an hour of nothing higher than a four, even though you know low rolls are random and owe you nothing.
[...]

Damn, Ninjad my basic gag..... well wouldn't argue with a World Eater.


OT:

Well I hate it when evolution is displayed as some form of directed progression to some goal*. I think people should understand the basics behind evolution because it is important in many regards. But that might just be me because I am in genetics.

*in a serious fashion. I have no problems with stuff like that in fiction or spore or something like that

Captcha: "I'm yours"....... ooooooookaaay.....

 

[Proto325]

"Human beings only use 10% of their brains."

This one really bugs the crap out of me. I usually hear it said by 'experts' on late night tv who are trying to sell books to expand our memory or unlock our psychic potential or some such rubbish.

Human beings don't only use 10% of our brains, we only use 10% of our brains at any one time. The parts of our brains that are active while we are for instance, reading a book, are inactive or less active when we are listening to someone talk, singing a song, playing jump rope, etc.

The plus side to that one is that you can always look smugly at whoever says it to you and say, "Well, maybe you do."

On a slightly more serious note, I thought the truth behind that little factoid was that only 10% (or less) of our brain cells are neurons?

 

[Olas]

Organic food. As opposed to what? Food that isn't carbon based?

 

[JeffBergGold]

Men and women are the same.

 

[WolfThomas]

The Monty Hall problem

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1 [but the door is not opened], and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

People who can't understand that it is statistically in your favor to swap doors.

 

[Navvan]

"Human beings only use 10% of their brains."

This one really bugs the crap out of me. I usually hear it said by 'experts' on late night tv who are trying to sell books to expand our memory or unlock our psychic potential or some such rubbish.

Human beings don't only use 10% of our brains, we only use 10% of our brains at any one time. The parts of our brains that are active while we are for instance, reading a book, are inactive or less active when we are listening to someone talk, singing a song, playing jump rope, etc.

The plus side to that one is that you can always look smugly at whoever says it to you and say, "Well, maybe you do."

On a slightly more serious note, I thought the truth behind that little factoid was that only 10% (or less) of our brain cells are neurons?

Neither are actually true. While our entire brain is never concurrently active we switch between modes while doing things so frequently that its hard to pin down a "%" active at any given moment, and as far as I know a maximum has not been determined. I'm know it is above 10% however. The myth started as most do with a off hand comment later taken out of context.

 

[Dense_Electric]

9/11 conspiracy theorists. They ignore hard evidence in favor of spouting some nonsense they can barely even begin to justify. The ones that piss me off the most are the people who act like they're all knowledgeable on the subject (the phrase, "I've read the engineering" comes to mind...), when in reality they have absolutely no idea how physics works, how skyscrapers are built, or about the details of the events of that day.

Recently I got into a debate with a guy who was trying to convince me that Seven World Trade Center was three blocks away from One World Trade Center (in reality, it was on the adjacent block). That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - they launch into an argument they think they know everything about when they can't even get the most basic facts straight. And yet here he was espousing the fact that steel melts above 2000 fahrenheit (whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that it begins to lose its structural integrity around 500-700).

 

[Quadocky]

Global Warming is completely man made and IS KILLING THE ENVIRONMENT AND WE ARE ALL HORRIBLE PEOPLE FOR PRODUCING CARBON DIOXIDE AND SUFFOCATING MOTHER EARTH!

Actually you got it backwards, there is a bigger problem with people thinking that human beings have no influence upon the earth. This is what bothers me actually.

Yes the earth has its own natural processes but the idea that we as humans cannot effect the environment is simply untrue. One example being of when all the planes were grounded during the 9/11 attacks. The temperature did change quite a bit.

I am not disagreeing with the premise that its better for people to be more accurate in their complaints, but to outright dismiss the concern is irresponsible in my opinion because there is already quite a bit of misinformation out there.

Here have some obligatory article I have read recently that I thought was relevant.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

Also one thing that has always annoyed me in terms of misconception and politics is the idea that "Both sides do it" as a way to dismiss actual concerns that may be leveled. This is usually in terms of the lack of objective analysis or the utter failure of the media to actually be objective. A recent elaboration on this can be noticed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPwG-NoiVgk

Well no, humans don't do jack shit to the Earth - it's just that what we do isn't as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be. As said even with all the pollution and shit we've made over the thousand+ years of our industrial era, we're only going to hasten the process by barely a percent, and even then whatever damage we do do is easily repaired by the Earth's natural systems.

I wouldn't say easily repaired. But the idea here is that yes humans can effect the environment.

 

[RaffB]

One minor one for me.

In E equals M C Squared, I always get irked when people say C is the speed of light....

C is the speed of light in a Vacuum, as light can and does slow down depending on the medium it is travelling through..

 

[OldNewNewOld]

My dad was in one of these fad diets. He was saying about how this *super legit book* of his told him that certain blood types are naturally meant to eat certain types of food, and for him (O-) that wheat was actually toxic for him and that he was trying not to eat wheat anymore.

I facepalmed so hard and then showed him several websites which discredited the book he was reading, as well as informing him from my own personal knowledge how that wasn't possible...

I still don't think he agreed with me but i dont think hes on that diet anymore.

My mother was reading that book recently.
My brother has a tumor on his brain and after all the chemo shit, his immune system was bad and the doctor said he should eat only healthy food and some other thing.

Long story short, she wanted to get a diet out of that book for him. I took the book and burned it. Like hell I will let her do that shit.

 

[MrPhyntch]

The least controversial one I can think of is the thought that Pi has an end.If we find the end of Pi, we have an exact ratio of the diameter to circumference of a circle, and the roundness of an arch is now nonexistant, having been reduced to a series of infinitesimally small jagged lines like pixel art. It's like finding the end of infinity, when you get there, you can always add 1 to it, meaning it will still go on; in this case, you can always make the little jaggies smaller, making the circle even more round. Pretty much the only result of proving Pi has an end is proving that we do, in fact live in a matrix (as we now know the resolution of life).

Other than that, here are some environmental concerns people get wrong:

Recycling oftentimes creates more air pollution than creating something from scratch. The only real benefits to recycling is price point (such as in metals), Ecosystem preservation (such as paper and cardboard), resource preservation (metals again, and oil in the case of plastic), and reduction in landfill use. Due to transportation and refining practices, recycling tends to create a lot more greenhouse gasses than initial production, meaning that recycling to stop global warming is ridiculous (although, like I said, there are still plenty of benefits).

Relatedly, most "Bio-degradable" stuff (such as those Sun-chip bags, for example), will not, in fact, degrade, because they get packed into such a small and dense spaces they get no air or degraders to come in and clean it up, making the ultimate result not at all more eco-friendly (and all the more expensive. Hooray!)

Electric cars do not really help the environment as much as people think. Even removing the production costs, most of the electricity in the world is run on coal and other hydro-carbons, and the conversion to electricity that can be used for energy is more inefficient than a gas engine at this time, meaning that for the same mileage most electric cars have a bigger carbon footprint than gas. Then, gas motors are almost made fully of recyclable metals, whereas electric motors and their batteries are made from lots of unrecyclables and hazardous materials we don't want in the environment, meaning their long-term impact is horrible as well.

And, as much as I love the Fallout series, it has done nothing but help several nuclear fallacies:

Radioactive materials cannot make other things radioactive under normal circumstances (such as with nuclear fallout). While there's always a risk of the material contaminating water or something along those lines, it cannot make it radioactive, and if it did, it would not stay so long.

Dangerous nuclear material has an incredibly short half-life. While all radioactive material is dangerous to some degree, the dangerous kind used in bombs and such would have died out long before the 200 years or so that have passed in the Fallout timeline.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

One minor one for me.

In E equals M C Squared, I always get irked when people say C is the speed of light....

C is the speed of light in a Vacuum, as light can and does slow down depending on the medium it is travelling through..

But, then they are correct, aren't they?
C is the speed of light.
Yes, the speed of light changes depending on the medium, but C is still the speed of light.

 

[direkiller]

Electric cars do not really help the environment as much as people think. Even removing the production costs, most of the electricity in the world is run on coal and other hydro-carbons, and the conversion to electricity that can be used for energy is more inefficient than a gas engine at this time, meaning that for the same mileage most electric cars have a bigger carbon footprint than gas. Then, gas motors are almost made fully of recyclable metals, whereas electric motors and their batteries are made from lots of unrecyclables and hazardous materials we don't want in the environment, meaning their long-term impact is horrible as well.

your right in a way but there is a few more parts to this problem.

The larger power stations are run 24-7 because it is more expensive to start and stop them every day then to keep them running.At offpeak hours this causes power to be made that no one is using. as there is almost no capacitance to the grid it is simply tossed off as heat. So if you charge your car during off peak hours the net energy use is less then if you used gas.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Babies born through brother and sister are always deformed and have a tentacle.

The most basic genetic knowledge will tell you that the % of deformities doubles from 2% to 4% under these circumstances. This includes errors such as bad eyesight. This ignorance of basic science annoys me. Rational people assume ridiculous things when it comes to this based on an obvious cultural bias.

Schrodingers cat was NOT about cats ACTUALLY being dead and alive at all. The idea was the thought experiment was to prove how ridiculous it would be if this idea was true. It was to poke a hole in the theory where such a cat would exist by saying "That would be stupid right?"

 

[Imthatguy]

Electric cars do not really help the environment as much as people think. Even removing the production costs, most of the electricity in the world is run on coal and other hydro-carbons, and the conversion to electricity that can be used for energy is more inefficient than a gas engine at this time, meaning that for the same mileage most electric cars have a bigger carbon footprint than gas. Then, gas motors are almost made fully of recyclable metals, whereas electric motors and their batteries are made from lots of unrecyclables and hazardous materials we don't want in the environment, meaning their long-term impact is horrible as well.

Baby steps broski, first we get away from a energy source we're using WAY too quickly to be sustainable then we fix how electricity is generated by switching to renewables (and Nuclear if I have anything to say about it).

And toxic waste in the environment is going to be a mute point when we run out of exploitable oil sources and our society collapses/fragments/ect.

 

[Frission]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Are you saying that a scientific theory is the equivalent to anything that can be though be thought up by a tinfoil hat? Really. See good example of people who don't understand the scientific method.

You're in the wrong thread buddy.

EDIT: Why is this thread about scientific misconceptions attracting so many people ignorant on science?

 

[Frission]

Organic food. As opposed to what? Food that isn't carbon based?

I think it's supposed to be food that hasn't been coated with pesticides. Or had any chemical additives I guess.

 

[Subscriptism]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Are you saying that a scientific theory is the equivalent to anything that can be though be thought up by a tinfoil hat? Really. See good example of people who don't understand the scientific method.

You're in the wrong thread buddy.

EDIT: Why is this thread about scientific misconceptions attracting so many people ignorant on science?

There is nothing that people like more to pretend they know about than science. A lot of people probably read this thinking finally something that will appeal to my cleverclogs nature, then they realise we are talking about nuts like them.

 

[Frission]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Are you saying that a scientific theory is the equivalent to anything that can be though be thought up by a tinfoil hat? Really. See good example of people who don't understand the scientific method.

You're in the wrong thread buddy.

EDIT: Why is this thread about scientific misconceptions attracting so many people ignorant on science?

There is nothing that people like more to pretend they know about than science. A lot of people probably read this thinking finally something that will appeal to my cleverclogs nature, then they realise we are talking about nuts like them.

...

What? I don't understand. Can you rewrite that into slightly more coherent English?
EDIT: Never mind, it's my fault. I reread it.

I agree. I barely understand mathematics, psychology and physics ( at least in a way I find satisfactory), but there is some high school level errors here.