List of Common Misconceptions

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Ed Hardy, Feb 7, 2012.

  1. Ed Hardy

    Ed Hardy TabletPCReview Editor Staff Member

    Messages:
    20,720
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Start by reading this:
    xkcd: Misconceptions

    As today is the first Tuesday in February, its time to read Wikipedia's "List of Common Misconceptions".

    List of common misconceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It's an opportunity to un-learn many things you once thought were true: Napoleon was not short, bumblebees don't violate the laws of aerodynamics, and you can (and should) wake up a sleepwalker. These and many more can be found on the list.

    Do you have one you'd like to add to the list? Chime in below.
    -
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2015
    jigwashere likes this.
  2. Chet L.

    Chet L. Mobile Deity

    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Misconception...Everything that is read on Wikipedia is accurate.;)
     
  3. Ed Hardy

    Ed Hardy TabletPCReview Editor Staff Member

    Messages:
    20,720
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You might consider reading this article, too:
    Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Studies have shown that Wikipedia's biggest problem isn't inaccuracy, but that many of its articles are poorly organized.

    I know, you hear jokes about Wikipedia vandalism (Stephen Colbert likes to make them), but the site is set up in such a way that it's actually much easier to remove vandalism than it is to post it. Few deliberately inaccurate entries last long enough for more than a handful of of people to read them.
    -
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2015
  4. r0k

    r0k Dazed

    Messages:
    9,750
    Likes Received:
    1,273
    Trophy Points:
    288
    Nice article you linked to, Ed...

    Nero didn't fiddle while Rome burned?

    The Great Wall of China isn't visible from the moon?

    I quit. Almost all my "facts" are useless now. :eek:
     
  5. weegie

    weegie Mobile Deity

    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    515
    Trophy Points:
    288
    Android is open and free

    iPhones always just work

    Windows phone 8 will succeed if they make Windows desktop look like it.

    One for each ;) :D
     
    jigwashere likes this.
  6. hal

    hal itchy and cold feet hal

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    340
    Trophy Points:
    186
    I find inaccuracies of assorted nature in Wikipedia. I mainly use it as a subject launcher, but I by no means stick to it without cross-referencing. BTW after all my years in automotive, working in Engineering and Quality departments, they mutilated and mangled my article about OEM-level manufacturing (yes, I started it :) ) and told me "that I didn't give reliable sources".

    My unreliable sources involved links to ISO, QS9000 and ANFIA pages, and I went as far as scanning pages of original QS9000 sets of manuals that I own, in order to send them by PM over there, and they preferred very twisted or simplistic descriptions, replying that either they needed a much more reputed authority to develop the article (OK, fair enough), or they needed to discuss my definitions (plain BS), so I replied that "my definitions" are not mine, that I do-not-own any definitions in life whatsoever cause I live by the facts, and that said descriptions and definitions were of the coinage of the automotive & electronics industry, as well as certification institutes, under the evidence I offered. At that point, I abandoned the subject and never touched it again.

    Next thing they'll do is decide whether the value of gravity pull also has to be determined meritocratically, or by metrological observation.
     
  7. hal

    hal itchy and cold feet hal

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    340
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Speaking of misconceptions: taken from the very article at Wikipedia, section Physics.

    "It is not true that air takes the same time to travel above and below an aircraft's wing/airfoil.[293] This misconception is widespread among textbooks and non-technical reference books, and even appears in pilot training materials. In fact the air moving over the top of an airfoil generating lift is always moving much faster than the equal transit theory would imply,[293] as described in the incorrect and correct explanations of lift force."

    It is totally true that air takes the same time to travel above and below an aircraft's wing/airfoil. Now, the last sentence of the paragraph: "In fact the air moving over the top of an airfoil generating lift is always moving much faster (...)"

    Air moving on both top and bottom of the airfoil take the same time to travel (or more accurately, the airfoil slides uniformly in between both), yet the fluid speed is higher (or faster) on top of the airfoil, cause it has to travel a longer distance (wherein relies the very purpose of the airfoil regarding fluid mechanics). The final effect is that air pressure is higher under the airfoil than above it, and that's one of the prime factors why planes can fly, it's both a pressure differential and the vehicle's thrust what keeps the plane flying. Actually, both statements of this subject are true, the first regarding time, and the second regarding speed, instead of the first statement false and the second true. Planes essentially fly thanks to the mixed application of the Bernoulli Principle and the Third Law of Mechanics.

    As I said, speaking of misconceptions... :rolleyes:

    <& BTW, quoting/citing the MythBusters as a source of verifiable experimentation, is like quoting Charlie Brown as a source of social expertise. Meaning that as much as many verifiable facts can be revealed, they totally lack a solid background on the subject, attain to monographic observation, they lack a methodology and usually lack reliable instrumentation to measure their "tests". The MythBusters are usually just as empirical as the assertions they wish to test. They essentially test things just to see what they wish to see.>
     
  8. Ed Hardy

    Ed Hardy TabletPCReview Editor Staff Member

    Messages:
    20,720
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I really love the Mythbusters, but there's no doubt their science is sometimes weak. They'll do a single experiment and based on that result draw a conclusion. That's high school science fair-type stuff.
    -
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2015
  9. hal

    hal itchy and cold feet hal

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    340
    Trophy Points:
    186
    "Science fair stuff", yes that's the term :D And in several examples I wonder whether they even fall short for a science fair. At the ones I attended when I was a student, my teachers of assorted sciences were just behind the test to verify methodology. I also love the MythBusters, but I do challenge the way they do things, and in fact, drawing conclusions after a single test is a common feature in their show. I mean, if they know that much, why aren't they designing and building planes, or cars, or dams?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2015
  10. Hook

    Hook Helga in Disguise!

    Messages:
    20,168
    Likes Received:
    13,232
    Trophy Points:
    288
    Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

    Oh where, oh where is Zippy. Lauren, if you would, please! :newpalm: :D :newpalm:
     

Share This Page