Intersting things we are told that are wrong.

[mr moose]

One thing that has intrigued me when watching documentaries,  is how often the information is not accurate.  You would have though a little bit of background investigation would be sufficient for a documentary.  Alas, this lead me to start thinking about all the things that we've been told or taught that are actually wrong.

 

How many common things do you know of that are taught generically in schools or in adverts that are wrong.

 

 

The two that I have discovered recently (because I have been mad about the industrial revolution and reading up on it)

 

Richard Trevithick invented both the steam train and the first car.

The Chinese developed flow line production long before the industrial revolution (not ford)

 

 

Please list what you know/think you know and debate it.  Maybe we'll all learn something.

 

 

 

[lewdicrous]

Company propaganda plays a role in the spread of misinformation like that; every company wants to be known as the ones who invented something.

Culture can also affect public perception of a certain matter; they either don't want to be known for something they did in the past or they want to be known for some invention or system they may or may not have created.

 

As for something I was taught, but turned out to be bs, when I was in the second grade, I was told that if one of your eyelashes falls, then you can make a wish and it will come true.

Not sure if that's related, but I'm still pissed lol.

[Kawaii Koneko]

What about conspiracy theories?

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

all news in chiNazi

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

What about conspiracy theories?

If they are taught in schools or found on serious documentaries sure.  

 

For example early Christians thought the earth was flat is fairly commonly taught but not true.  However talking about flat earthers today is not what I meant this thread for.

[Teddy07]

Sitting outside on cold park benches, stone slabs, ... will cause hemorrhoids

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I remember back when the Russians claimed they invented just about everything. 

 

We were taught that Gutenberg invented the movable type printing press but is not true. The Chinese (not the Russians, btw) invented movable type printing using fired clay blocks back in 1040. The Koreans substituted copper for clay as early as 1392. Palmfildo Castaldi was an early 15 century European printer who claimed to have invented movable type print before Gutenberg but it was a Dutch printer by the name of Koster who is believed by some to have invented movable type print in Europe before either of the other two.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurens_Janszoon_Coster

 

[TempestCatto]

Not sure about you all, but I was taught in health class that diet drinks are bad for you because of the aspartame. Well I did my own research on it because I sorta got addicted to diet Red Bull. But in short, aspartame isn't bad for you until you drink 28 soda can sized (25 Freedom Ounces or 355mL) diet drinks on the daily. If it's in moderation, you're unaffected by it and should enjoy happily.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I remember back when the Russians claimed they invented just about everything. 

 

We were taught that Gutenberg invented the movable type printing press but is not true. The Chinese (not the Russians, btw) invented movable type printing using fired clay blocks back in 1040. The Koreans substituted copper for clay as early as 1392. Palmfildo Castaldi was an early 15 century European printer who claimed to have invented movable type print before Gutenberg but it was a Dutch printer by the name of Koster who is believed by some to have invented movable type print in Europe before either of the other two.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurens_Janszoon_Coster

 

from what I've seen in documentaries on English industry, they didn't see a printing press until the 15th century.

 

[PlayStation 2]

I remember when parents would claim that swallowing gum would get stuck in your stomach.

Needless to say, after a lot of gum swallowed, that has never happened.

[mr moose]

 

3 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

I remember when parents would claim that swallowing gum would get stuck in your stomach.

Needless to say, after a lot of gum swallowed, that has never happened.

Ahh, just like the old claims that if you go out in the cold you will catch a cold.

[Drak3]

The notion that Turbocharged engines are more efficient because they're turbocharged.

 

 

They're not. Mazda's non turbo Skyactiv engines have proven this. Turbos are only good at making power, hence why they're added to efficient (but low power) base engines to get decent performance while still being able to get decent MPG.

[PlayStation 2]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The notion that Turbocharged engines are more efficient because they're turbocharged.

 

 

They're not. Mazda's non turbo Skyactiv engines have proven this. Turbos are only good at making power, hence why they're added to efficient (but low power) base engines to get decent performance while still being able to get decent MPG.

I guess the biggest thing you could argue with turbocharged engines is allowing 4-cylinder engines to get V6 power without, well, the V6 fuel economy. 

Which, when you really think about it, is kind of a dumb argument in practice, as you're getting, like, 2-4MPG more out of a turbo-4 than a V6 in the context of a mid-size sedan?

Although, I guess it starts making more sense in a crossover, but even still. Then you gotta deal with the problems that typically come out of forced induction engines (I'm looking squarely at GM, who can't make a turbocharged engine worth a fuck) because they're a lot more likely to be stressed than actually pushing the most out of naturally aspirated engines, like what Mazda's doing.

I love Saab, but god damn if they didn't start one of the worst trends in the auto industry.

[Drak3]

Just now, handymanshandle said:

I guess the biggest thing you could argue with turbocharged engines is allowing 4-cylinder engines to get V6 power without, well, the V6 economy. 

Which, when you really think about it, is kind of a dumb argument in practice, as you're getting, like, 2-4MPG more out of a turbo-4 than a V6 in the context of a mid-size sedan?

Although, I guess it starts making more sense in a crossover, but even still. Then you gotta deal with the problems that typically come out of forced induction engines (I'm looking squarely at GM, who can't make a turbocharged engine worth a fuck) because they're a lot more likely to be stressed than actually pushing the most out of naturally aspirated engines, like what Mazda's doing.

I love Saab, but god damn if they didn't start one of the worst trends in the auto industry.

It's not that dumb of an argument, in the context of modern vehicles slowly getting heavier and larger to accommodate more safety equipment. Going too slow is an issue in many situations, such as merging onto highways.

 

Plus, an inline 4 or a boxer engine has different space requirements that can work better in certain designs.

 

 

As far as GM goes, they talk up the bulk of their vehicles through highly questionable (and IMO invalid) JD Power awards, with only a handful of vehicles that are on par with the competition, and a smaller selection that occasionally might be better. Though, new GM 1/2T trucks are safer than Toyota's Tundra, so if you're willing to put forth the work to improve the truck, it's an option.

[Dash Lambda]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Ahh, just like the old claims that if you go out in the cold you will catch a cold.

That's actually not very well understood.

As far as I'm aware we have observed that colder temperatures mildly suppress the immune system. Beyond that, we actually don't know.

[Flying Sausages]

One of my classmates told me that if I microwave my foods I will get cancer because microwaving foods is no good, and here I am no cancer from microwaving foods.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

That's actually not very well understood.

As far as I'm aware we have observed that colder temperatures mildly suppress the immune system. Beyond that, we actually don't know.

 

This is true to a degree. but you still have to catch the virus which doesn't care how cold you are or aren't.

there is a small section on the cold in this article:

https://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica fact file/science/cold-weather-health.php

 

 

 

 

[amdorintel]

colds and viruses dont like cold

 

[Bombastinator]

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

One thing that has intrigued me when watching documentaries,  is how often the information is not accurate.  You would have though a little bit of background investigation would be sufficient for a documentary.  Alas, this lead me to start thinking about all the things that we've been told or taught that are actually wrong.

 

How many common things do you know of that are taught generically in schools or in adverts that are wrong.

 

 

The two that I have discovered recently (because I have been mad about the industrial revolution and reading up on it)

 

Richard Trevithick invented both the steam train and the first car.

The Chinese developed flow line production long before the industrial revolution (not ford)

 

 

Please list what you know/think you know and debate it.  Maybe we'll all learn something.

 

 

 

I could do 20 pages on ecigarettes.  It’s an interest of mine.  The producers are generally large corporations the majority of which are not tobacco companies but pharmaceutical companies that gain a large portion of their revenue from competing but generally inferior tobacco cessation products.

[Gegger]

eating sushi will kill you

 

room temperature water is bad for you

 

wifi will kill you

 

cigarettes are not dangerous

 

alcohol is good for you

 

soap doesn't clean anything

 

and don't get me started on anti-vaxxers

[amdorintel]

Just now, Gegger said:

alcohol is good for you

there is always a study out there that says a glass of red wine is good for you

studies that are reputable

[Gegger]

Just now, amdorintel said:

there is always a study out there that says a glass of red wine is good for you

studies that are reputable

the person meant that heavy drinking was good

[amdorintel]

2 minutes ago, Gegger said:

alcohol is good for you

 

Just now, Gegger said:

the person meant that heavy drinking was good

 

 

 

ok i see

 

 

[Drak3]

Just now, amdorintel said:

there is always a study out there that says a glass of red wine is good for you

studies that are reputable

It's not because of the alcohol. It's because of the nutrients in the grapes that end up in the wine.

[amdorintel]

Just now, Drak3 said:

It's not because of the alcohol. It's because of the nutrients in the grapes that end up in the wine.

oh i know that, indeed the nutrients in grapes are delicious

 

anything not in moderation can be and is bad for you.

that is why they sell them baby bottles for $3.99 at the liquor store