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

[Vanitas likes Bubbles]

Well, I'm not a scientist and frankly most the words in this thread are giving me a headache so I'll go for a simple one:

"Weed has like no side effects"

Yes, people actually believe this...

 

[TeletubbiesGolfGun]

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.

Though actually, the thing that annoys me most is people that point out scientific inaccuracies in all forms of entertainment, especially films. Couldn't happen in real life? Good thing it's not real life, that could have been bad for the laws of the universe. Now shut up, things are exploding.

both of these.

good god do i hate the gamblers fallacy with a passion, it annoys the shit out of me when someone i know tries to sound smart for no reason other than swingin their dick out there.

also, your second part, very true also, i tend to mute that person immediately, fuck that party pooper.

4) People who can't do simple math. These folks need to die. There is no excuse, none, for not being able to figure out how many times 17 goes into 4913. I have worked around people who could not do basic addition and subtraction. I learned that shit in the first grade and built on it almost daily for the next twelve years. Where was everyone else??

wait what? since when is figuring out what 4913 divided by 17 something common and easy enough to do in your head? i don't know too many people who can just spout something of like that at random...

 

[khiliani]

as a microbiologist the thing that realy REALY shits me is the anti-vaccination movement. i can not think of a single group of people doing more to drag humanity back into the dark ages. i just want to cry every time i hear of someone dying of whooping cough or diptheria because they thought the vaccine would give them autism. that claim alone drives me nuts. it was in 1 paper, which has been retracted cause of shit science, 9 of the 11 authors have distanced themselves from the conclusions of the paper, and the lead author, and the papers only defender has now lost his medical licence, there is no way that can be more disproved, but no its all "I wont protect my child, and by proxy the community from this easaly preventable disease because it will give my child down syndrome. i know this cause a woman who could tell you what a fucking T-cell is said so" sigh, so much lost hope for humanity.

otherwise, as said above, arguments agaist evolution, "you cant prove evolution" I can think of at least 3 simple experiments to prove evolution happening in a clear and disticnt fashon, but even if i showed them, they would sill argue against it.

 

[vxicepickxv]

as a microbiologist the thing that realy REALY shits me is the anti-vaccination movement. i can not think of a single group of people doing more to drag humanity back into the dark ages. i just want to cry every time i hear of someone dying of whooping cough or diptheria because they thought the vaccine would give them autism. that claim alone drives me nuts. it was in 1 paper, which has been retracted cause of shit science, 9 of the 11 authors have distanced themselves from the conclusions of the paper, and the lead author, and the papers only defender has now lost his medical licence, there is no way that can be more disproved, but no its all "I wont protect my child, and by proxy the community from this easaly preventable disease because it will give my child down syndrome. i know this cause a woman who could tell you what a fucking T-cell is said so" sigh, so much lost hope for humanity.

otherwise, as said above, arguments agaist evolution, "you cant prove evolution" I can think of at least 3 simple experiments to prove evolution happening in a clear and disticnt fashon, but even if i showed them, they would sill argue against it.

I could have sworn that by now microevolution was considered fact, while macroevolution was still considered theory.

One of my primary knowledge pools is electrical and electronic theory, and people not understanding even the basics of how their stuff works bugs the hell out of me. I know one of the discussions had to do with a taser. There was an old man who was "choking his grandson to exorcise the demons within him" and someone was concerned about the tasers shocking the 3 year old. The path of least resistance is from one taser lead to the other, not through the 3 year old.

Of course, the muscle spasms that could have caused the child to be choked harder due to tightening is a bit of concern, but that's another story entirely, and not the old man's problem anymore, because his heart failed.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

The misconception that the act of turning a lightbulb on or off causes such a spike in energy as to render it more wasteful than leaving it on for intervals of about 10 minutes. It makes genuine environmentally minded people seem like idiots when they suggest it to someone who knows otherwise, and compromises their own principles every other time.

But for the record, centrifugal force exists. In a physics setting, no, I do not think it should be used. But every other time, ffs, people know what it is and what it means.

 

[DugMachine]

Gravity and Evolution being "theories". Ho man ima cap a sucker if I hear that one more time.

Also, I don't know how to describe it but people don't seem to understand how probability and chance work. My friend bought a lottery ticket and lost that week. Then 2 weeks later those SAME numbers popped up on the next one. Obviously he was raging mad but he went "GOD if only I had saved those numbers for those 2 weeks." Like lolwat? That's not how chance works nor do you have any way of predicting... eh just one thing that annoys me.

 

[Zeema]

"Evolution is just your opinion"

>.<

Hell yes it feels like such a cop out excuse

 

[kyuzo3567]

1)
3) Evolution is just a "theory". Ya know, like Gravity.

See, I disagree with this one, only for the fact that I find calling it a theory not to be a bad thing. The way a professor explained it to me is "theories are amazing. They have the ability to be both proven and disproven, and if/when it is disproven, such as when new evidence or experiment results come to the surface, we can adapt and change our theory and continue learning. Artificial selection is dumb because it can never be proven or disproven, its inherently useless to us as a society."

Basically one of the highest compliments you can give something in this field is to call it a theory. that means its widely acknowledged and accepted and can help further our knowledge of the world because it gives us a place to start.

Did that make any sense? He worded it alot better but it was a few weeks ago and I was laughing too hard to really remember what he said in specifics

 

[RJ 17]

How about the algebraic proof that 0.999(rep) = 1?

x = 0.999(rep)

multiiply both sides by 10

10x = 9.999(rep)

Subtract x (which is valued at 0.999(rep)) from both sides

9x = 9

Divide both sides by 9

x = 1

 

[Indecipherable]

How about the algebraic proof that 0.999(rep) = 1?

x = 0.999(rep)

multiiply both sides by 10

10x = 9.999(rep)

Subtract x (which is valued at 0.999(rep)) from both sides

9x = 9

Divide both sides by 9

x = 1

That's not a misconception which is what the thread is about.

Having finished my degree in Economics and now finishing my major in Finance - basically 90% or more of everything you read in the typical newspaper has limited value.

 

[khiliani]

I could have sworn that by now microevolution was considered fact, while macroevolution was still considered theory.

Seeing as the biological mechanics that powers "microevolution" (im assuming you mean the evolution of microorganisms like bacteria and viruses and the like) are exactly the same in macroevolution, if one is accepted scientific theory, they both are

 

[SciMal]

1)
3) Evolution is just a "theory". Ya know, like Gravity.

See, I disagree with this one, only for the fact that I find calling it a theory not to be a bad thing. The way a professor explained it to me is "theories are amazing. They have the ability to be both proven and disproven, and if/when it is disproven, such as when new evidence or experiment results come to the surface, we can adapt and change our theory and continue learning. Artificial selection is dumb because it can never be proven or disproven, its inherently useless to us as a society."

Basically one of the highest compliments you can give something in this field is to call it a theory. that means its widely acknowledged and accepted and can help further our knowledge of the world because it gives us a place to start.

Did that make any sense? He worded it alot better but it was a few weeks ago and I was laughing too hard to really remember what he said in specifics

You missed the sarcasm in my post. ;-)

I'm well aware that a scientific Theory is basically a "fact", but people use the "it's just a theory" argument all the time whilst completely unaware we understand Evolution better than we understand Gravity.

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

1) Using complex quantum physics explainations to explain how alternative medicine works because the quacks don't have empirical data to show that it does work. It doesn't matter how correct your explanation was, if it is shown to not have an effect, it does dick all. That's the bottom line in Medicine.

2) "I believe in Creationism over Evolution because it's all opinion anyway" (that one really gets on my tits) Nothing in science is opinion. Science, like reality, doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks.

3) "Your faith in tests is just as strong (and sometimes stronger) then the faith fundimentalists have" First of all, having faith in a theory is HIGHLY unrecommended. Secondly, having faith in tests (in this context atleast) is contradictory at best (If I have faith in a theory, why am I testing it?).

4) "How do they know that?" This get's on my nerves when it isn't used in a curious and genuinly inquisitive context, but is rather a dismissal based on the fallacy offenders' ignorance.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

The idea that a scientific theory is just some stuff that some guy decided was fact.

Also this.

'That would be like scientists thinking that the theory of gravity is wrong because one guy can levitate.'

I think...if one guy could levitate....then yes scientists would either be taking a very hard look at either; that one guys biology or the theory of gravity...you fucking fool.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Pretty much all popular theories about alien life being just like us just because humans are so awesome! It would be one thing if people played this off as opinion, but they don't. The human body isn't that marvelous a contraption of engineering when compared to what else we know about nature. It is quite a good body for US and our needs, but that shouldn't effect our outlook elsewhere; we're letting ego get in the way, and it's so obvious, it's sad. The probability aliens will look like Star Trek aliens is so low, it is nearly incalculable.

Dunno if this counts, but people who claim that any research involving genes or dna is evil because "giving girrafes trunks would be an insult to God" or something. Genes are NOT blueprints. You can't just take the genes for a fish's gills and stick them in a tiger, and get a tiger that breathes under water.

It doesn't work like that.

And even if it did, so what? I am pretty sure we've already thoroughly insulted god if that's what altering animals does. We have changed the shape of animals and bred them with specific genetics for centuries, creating entierly new ones. That is how we have the animal we identify as "dog" right now. But I guess if laboratories are involved it must be evil. I mean, don't you watch horror movies? Accursed science! haha.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Pretty much all popular theories about alien life being just like us just because humans are so awesome! It would be one thing if people played this off as opinion, but they don't. The human body isn't that marvelous a contraption of engineering when compared to what else we know about nature. It is quite a good body for US and our needs, but that shouldn't effect our outlook elsewhere; we're letting ego get in the way, and it's so obvious, it's sad. The probability aliens will look like Star Trek aliens is so low, it is nearly incalculable.

It's a complete shame since the ideas of astrobiology and how different chemical, atmospheric and gravitational conditions would affect the development of life is so god-damn interesting.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

It's really annoying to hear people say that it's impossible to divide by zero.
It's entirely possible, it just opens up rifts in the space-time--similar to black holes. Some astronomers and scientists hypothesize that many of the universes black holes are the result of alien civilizations mass acceptance of the possibility of division by zero.

Not sure if you're being facetious, but I have it on the good authority (I understand that from your point of view I could be making it up, but I promise I'm not) of a 1st class maths graduate, that dividing by zero is indeed impossible.

 

[Azuaron]

In space, when the engine stops the ships stops for some reason... This makes me RAGE. I mean, when a freaking video game series with the worst ending ever is telling people off about this, you know you suck at science! I don't have the video but it is the ME2 one with the drill instructor telling people about sir Isaac Newton.

This does depend on how the ship is moving in the first place. In Firefly, for example, they have a technobabble that makes the ship and everything on it appear to have no mass to the rest of the universe, allowing them to move at great speeds with very little force. When the technobabble engine dies (as in Out of Gas), the ship regains all its mass relative to the rest of the universe, and the tiny amount of force that had been pushing it is suddenly insufficient.

This "works" *cough* because, for a mass-less object, F=ma breaks down if m = 0, but, if the mass returns, something something and you stop.