Talk:List of common misconceptions

Please read before proposing new entries A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list does not exist, but any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following: The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. If you propose an entry that does not fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please include your rationale for inclusion.

Schizophrenia (origin of the term)

I have read (but cannot provide a source, sorry), that the "split mind" definition of the word was intended to imply "split from reality". If someone is willing to find a source, would this be worthy of inclusion? 61.88.210.42 (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

see History of schizophrenia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Computing

The sole entry in the computing section is mostly unsourced, confusing, and partly inaccurate. Maybe an expert could take a look at it? 91.153.231.146 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed a large unsourced portion of that section.--Asher196 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The current version is still not as good as it could be. In my experience, the misconception in question applies more to malware in general (as is suggested in the first sentence). The usual response among programmers and computer scientists is to point out that Mac and Linux may in fact be just as vulnerable to exploitation (hacking and malware) as Windows, but since they represent a much smaller portion of the market, there is a much smaller monetary incentive for criminals to write malware and hacks for these machines. Separately, there may be arguments to suggest that Mac and Linux are less susceptible to viruses because of their open source foundations (Mac is based on an open source system, BSD, and Linux is itself open source), but I would advise against including this point in the misconception itself since it isn't related to the much more significant reason for the misconception, which is smaller market share and thus less economic incentive. Jalaska13 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted all the hedging and rationalization. The point of the misconception is that Mac and Linux systems simply are not immune, as hyped so commonly and urgently, now (still) and in the past. --Lexein (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the part about "there is little that the operating system can do about this". OSes that are locked down, such as iOS, Windows Phone, Windows RT and Windows 8 (Metro-side only), make a huge difference in security against malware. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Persistence of data in powered-off RAM

There's a common misconception among computer programmers and hobbyists that when power to a computer's RAM chips is removed, the data stored therein becomes immediately unavailable. This is partly due to the fact that basic computer education usually contrasts RAM (random access memory) with more permanent forms of storage such as hard drives in an attempt to illustrate the difference in their uses. However, most RAM actually retains data for a period of seconds or minute at room temperature, and much, much longer when cooled significantly. Here's the source for RAM data persistence: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-536.html. However, I'm unclear on the requirements for this page in terms of what needs to be cited, and so I was hesitant to actually post it. Also, I can't find a good definitive source for the stuff about education that I mentioned above - this is mostly from my own experience. Jalaska13 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the popular conception that information stored in RAM is lost when power is removed is, by and large, correct. I don't know that there's a popular misconception about whether it's instantaneous or over a period of several seconds; I rather doubt it, but if you can source that part of it sufficiently, it would overcome that objection. siafu (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As an EE, I'd say that generally we just don't CARE whether RAM images are persistent after the power is removed. For a robust system design you have to ASSUME it disappears immediately when power goes away, even if it's just a short glitch. The fact that the image may still be valid is almost never of any use. Middlenamefrank (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr. - In the front of a name does not mean Medical Doctor

I see way too many doctorates implying they are Medical Doctors or have a M.D. by simply placing "Dr." in front of their name or telling people to call them Doctor. This is a growing misconception and applies to all the pseudo sciences like sociology and psychology. I would also include Psychiatry but somehow they were able to attain MD's even though they do not diagnose, treat or cure any disease — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read the section at the top of this page that begins "please read". I have removed the other section you added -- there's no sense piling up things that don't meet the criteria for this article. Looie496 (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you insinuating the previous comment is not a misconception? 68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a common one, nor is it sourced, nor mentioned at the main article. siafu (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There are other problems with it. Your comment reveals many misunderstandings. It is perfectly proper to call a PhD or holder of any other doctorate "Doctor." This does not imply they are an M.D.. That some people think so is a misunderstanding. Look up "Doctor (title)." Also sociology and psychology aren't generally consider pseudosciences, but psychiatry often is, but that's not a consensus opinion. Psychiatrists are first M.D.s, and then specialize in psychiatry. It's not the other way around. Psychiatrists are allowed to diagnose, treat, and cure any medical condition, just like other M.D.. (For more about controversies about whether psychoanalysis is pseudoscience or not, look here.) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence is not irrelevant evidence

Far too often in the popular press, we see an attorney objecting by saying "that's circumstantial evidence". In truth, all evidence falls into one of two categories: circumstantial and eye-witness. Therefore, the great majority of legally relevant evidence is circumstantial. Its degree of relevance and importance is to be determined by the jury (or the judge if it's not a jury trial). Middlenamefrank (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case then it is a common misconception that attorneys frequently successfully object to circumstantial evidence. Jack 203.106.160.221 (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Pasta cooking with admixture of oil

Oil would not necessarily stay at the top. If the water is boiling and therefore agitated, droplets of oil could be drawn down to the pasta, and some might stick to it. I recommend speedy deletion of this item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.160.221 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at one of the sources for this statement, and it actually reads: "You may have heard that you can avoid sticky pasta by adding oil to the pasta water. This can prevent sticking, but at a great price. Pasta that's cooked in oily water will become oily itself and, as a result, the sauce slides off, doesn't get absorbed, and you have flavorless pasta." (My emphasis). This is in direct contradiction to the statement that oil in the water does not prevent sticking. I also feel, based on my own experience, that it is unlikely that the oil "just stays on top" during a vigorous boil. I support removal. Dr bab (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the cited sources and did a bit of googling, and it seems that some sources say the oil doesn't come in contact with the pasta, others say it does and this is bad since it interferes with the sauce sticking. I did not find any sources that I would consider really reliable sources. I've removed the item since it is contradicted by it's own source.

Also, this "misconception' is not included on the parent page so this entry fails to meet the criteria for this article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Another monosodium glutamate myth

It's a myth that it causes baldness in women who eat a lot of it. The baldness is actually genetic - the middle aged Chinese women go a bit thin on top and this is not uncommon among ethnic Chinese women in Malaysia about 50 years old, the hair still being black.203.106.160.221 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read the "Please read before proposing new entries"-box at the top of this page, and provide sources that this myth fulfills the 4 criteria. Dr bab (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A microwave ovens heat only the outer one centimetre?

This doesn't seem right.

I think the microwave oven does not cook the food from the inside out.I also agree that it probably heats the outer 1 cm more than than the centre, but I don't think the direct heating at depths greater than 1 cm is insignificant as alleged. If it were, then it would not be possible to cook a whole potato so quickly in a microwave oven. It would take about as long as it would to cook a potato with a radius 1 cm less in a conventional oven, which in my experience is clearly not the case.

Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the microwave oven heats the only the outer 5 cm directly, which would seem to make more sense.

If it is true that lean meat behaves like this, I would suggest that it is not true of all or even most foods, and is a somewhat misleading example.

I recommend considering trimming off that bit about the 1 cm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.160.221 (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The 1 cm limit is due to the penetration depth of microwaves, which is a function of the wavelength and the material in question. Since microwave ovens operate at short wavelengths (122 mm, corresponding to 2.45 GHz), the penetration depth is quite short, less than 1 cm in almost all cases. The precision of 1 cm as a metric is not terribly fine, but it's a good "average" for the variety of food items that go in microwaves, and it's also quite true that only a negligible amount of EM energy will penetrate beyond that since it falls off exponentially. The heating of the interior is due to indirect heating, i.e. it's heated by the outside material, and this obviously happens faster in substances with high heat conductance, like meat, potatoes, and other vegetables, all of which are mostly water. siafu (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If the interior is heated by the outside material, how is it that microwaving food heats the centre so much quicker than boiling it does? Jack 203.106.160.221 (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How is that microwave ovens are so much quicker than ordinary ovens or boiling water at heating the interiors of large lumps of food, if they heat only the outer 1 cm of the food? It doesn't seem to make sense. Jack 203.106.160.221 (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Both boiling and microwaves heat only the outside. Boiling heats just the surface, while a microwave heats the outer 1cm. The reason the interior gets hot faster with a microwave is that it heats the outer layer faster than boiling. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The gringo misconception is not very readable as it is.

This is how it is:

The word "gringo" did not originate during the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), the Venezuelan War of Independence (1811–1823), the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920), or in the American Old West (c. 1865–1899) as a corruption of the lyrics "green grow" in either "Green Grow the Lilacs" or "Green Grow the Rushes, O" sung by US-American soldiers or cowboys;[120] nor did it originate during any of these times as a corruption of "Green go home!", falsely said to have been shouted at green-clad American troops.[121] The word originally simply meant "foreigner", and is probably a corruption of Spanish griego, "Greek".[122]

This is how I'd have it:

The word "gringo" did not originate in any of the following ways: during the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), the Venezuelan War of Independence (1811–1823), the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920), in the American Old West (c. 1865–1899) as a corruption of the lyrics "green grow" in either "Green Grow the Lilacs" or "Green Grow the Rushes, O" sung by US-American soldiers or cowboys;[120] during any of these times as a corruption of "Green go home!" (falsely said to have been shouted at green-clad American troops).[121]

It truly originated this way: the word originally simply meant "foreigner", and is probably a corruption of Spanish griego, "Greek".[122]

Jack 203.106.160.221 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Biology

This section needs expanding. I'd suggest for example: the idea that tomato/pepper skins stick to the inside of stomachs causing problems. Also, the idea (in Eastern Europe especially) that air pressure affects people's moods (and causes headaches). It could be linked to meteoropathy. Oh, and for food: the idea that bananas have spiders/bacteria living in the end of them. I've heard that from many people. Malick78 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Should more be included?

I like the list here, but I'm wondering if more should be included or not. Some people think that dog's mouths are cleaner than humans, which they aren't or that the golden spike that connected the railways in the US was real. As long as you can find more information about other bogus things that people think is true, I hope that you include them on the page.

65.214.69.226 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are good ones, but: you are hereby enthusiastically encouraged to review the inclusion criteria (above), and add an item which meets all four. --Lexein (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Word misconceptions

"Funner" and "impactful" could not be found in Merriam-Webster, Cambridge dictionaries online, or Dictionary.com. I am sure they appear in other dictionaries, but these three, especially Merriam-Webster, are fairly authoritative in this area. I would recommend that these words be removed from the given list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.60.125 (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article does not consider "funner". The claim made for "impactful" is that it is alleged to be "not a word". You seem to be making precisely that allegation, thereby supporting what is maintained in the article. The reference to dictionaries does not limit itself to authoritative dictionaries; it is quite within the scope of Wikipedia to make generalizations about just about anything, including dictionaries that are not authoritative. Peter Brown (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, any lexicographer will likely tell you that there's no such thing as an authoritative dictionary either. A dictionary is a record of the usage of our language as it evolves, and dictionaries evolve with the language, they aren't intended to determine or restrict a language and its usage. If a word is not in the dictionary, it simply means the dictionary publisher hasn't caught up with it yet. There's an excellent blog post by a lexicographer on the subject here: http://korystamper.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/the-voice-of-authority-morality-and-dictionaries/ ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. While your source denies that dictionaries are authoritative as regards lots of things, he does acknowledge that they are authorities "on the meanings and uses of words." Not, to be clear, on what people ought to mean by words or how they ought to use them or pronounce them, but how, typically, they actually do. They're also authorities on etymology. Peter Brown (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

caduceus is a symbol of medicine even if it was chosen in error

The caduceus is a symbol of medicine even if it was not well chosen or was chosen in error.

14:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Michael Christian