Antibiotics aren't for viruses.
Cold air doesn't make you sick.
Tongues don't have "taste zones."
Muscles don't have memory.
And because you threw up for one day, you didn't have "the 24hr flu." You ate something bad or someone didn't wash their hands. The flu is short for influenza, which is a respiratory virus, which typically does not make you throw up and shit. More likely it was the dodgy gas station sushi.
To be fair, cold air can contribute to making you sick. I got more misled by being told getting a cold had nothing to do with temperature because it is a virus. It is indeed a virus, but you're more likely to get infected if you get cold.
I hate this one. Doesn't matter how many times I've had to hurry to catch a bus to get to college over the past 3 quarters, my mom will always tell me how I'm gonna get sick from having wet hair because I don't have enough time to dry it after I shower. So far I have yet to have any negative consequences for those (in)actions.
That's the difference between gray matter and white matter. Gray matter readily communicates with it's crowding neighbors and can retain information, while white matter is myelinated so it can send messages over distances. Gray matter extends from our brains down our spinal cords.
Muscles are dumb meat who take their orders from the nervous system. They have no capacity for memory. But training can create reflexes at the spinal cord level which some refer to as "muscle memory," except it's not the muscle that should get the credit here.
Dude idk this is the one thing that makes me scratch my head.
Kids seem to throw up often when they are sick. When the adults catch it from their kids, they very rarely have any GI issues but especially not nausea/vomiting. This is absolutely anecdotal evidence, but I anticipate a lot of parents and childcare workers will find rings true enough.
Or maybe it's my really shitty family genetics and we are all more likely to puke lol
Better still there were a bunch of facts that were false when they were taught to you but for some reason were still taught to you.
Like the obvious one, the tongue doesn't actually have different regions on it for tasting different things, a fact that you probably didn't believe even back then because anyone with a sugar cube and 5 minutes can disprove that.
My 6th grade science teacher taught us that blood is red but that some people think it is blue until it touches air because our veins look blue under our skin. He explained how the different wavelengths of light are absorbed differently and they was why it looks that way. Two years later my 8th grade science teacher taught us that blood is blue until it touches air. She was not happy when I told her she was wrong. I even explained it and told her to go talk to the other teacher if she still did not understand. She still would not listen to me. Over half the class was in the same sixth grade class as me but I was the only one that either remembered or was willing to stand up to the teacher. I finished losing faith in the education system on that day.
Well my 6th grade science teacher told us that Chernobyl was fortold in the book of revelations and it meant that the world will end soon. Public school. In New England. In the 90s. The 1990s.
A teacher not able to fathom being corrected by a student. Terrible and terribly common. Afraid to lose their authority, perhaps? I had this happen to me at around 8 or 9yo : I corrected my teacher on a specific conjugation (the infinitive of a verb), but she wouldn't admit she was wrong. That day I swore I'd respect anybody in a discussion, even when I thought I was right and they were wrong. I would consider their take at the minimum
My 7th grade science teacher told us that air is a perfect mixture. I raised my hand and said “how is it a perfect mixture when some cities have smog alerts, and the ozone layer hole?”
I want sent to the principal and told to never question teachers, they know more than I ever will. It was then I kind of gave up and saw behind the veil on education.
First thing I did when I read that was to put rub something all over my tongue just as a sanity check. When I tried to tell someone they went bonkers trying to defend the school book. From that point on I never took anything school books or adults said as fact without evidence.
lactic acid buildup makes your muscles hurt after a workout
blood that's returning to the heart and lungs is blue, blood that's leaving your heart to go do it's thing is red
sugar makes kids hyper
All three of those things have been thoroughly debunked, and are demonstrably false, and yet we teach them all the time. Sometimes it's even SCIENCE TEACHERS that are repeating these things, and sometimes it's right in the textbook!
Don’t forget how chocolate, even in tiny amount, will kill a dog. My mother told this to my kids, and they were all confused because our dog ate a bunch of chocolate easter candy and she was fine.
Even just the map of the world is outdated pretty much by the time it's taught.
In 2023 Micronesia made a fairly minor change from the former name, "Federated States of Micronesia". But, in 2022 Turkey now wants you to use its metal name: Türkiye.
Then there's the new country of South Sudan, Bougainville on its way to splitting from Papua New Guinea. And Kosovo shows another problem -- whether its an independent country or not depends on who you ask. That includes regions like South Ossetia, Transnistria, Catalonia and Taiwan.
Then there are things that students are taught that we've known are wrong for over a century, but the fully correct version is too complex for anything below a university course. Like, Newton's laws are appropriate for high school, but they're known to be incorrect and are simplifications of Einstein's refinements. But, they're close enough for most purposes, and understanding Einstein's stuff is pretty hard. Same with models of the atom.
And, history is another subject where the deeper you dig, the more the generalizations you're taught are shown to be wrong. The names and dates might be the same, but the reason X happened is often a whole lot more complex than the simple reasons given in high school.
I don't think outdated maps is as important as other things. Because two reasons. Maps are expensive to replace, and maps are politics. So no matter how you print the map, someone will think it's wrong.
Now if they thought you this knowledge about the maps, that would be really cool.
The interesting thing is that these days the maps people most use are digital ones. They can be updated instantly for everyone who uses them. But, even in that world you have problems.
In many countries it's a legal requirement that the maps reflect the country's definition of its borders. That means that in some cases Google Maps has 3 versions of a map, the one shown to users in country X (say India), the one shown to users in country Y (say China) and the one shown to users in the rest of the world, where the border is marked as disputed.
I went to visit my mum and dad last year and I found a globe in my sister's old bedroom from our childhood. It was interesting seeing the handful of countries on there that have since changed.
In high school, (mid 90s,) I tracked down when the odd globe we had at our house was produced. It must have been made in 1952 according to the encyclopedias. Tons of countries that no longer existed. Strangely enough this particular globe showed the major water bodies as black, not blue.
Like, Newton's laws are appropriate for high school, but they're known to be incorrect and are simplifications of Einstein's refinements. But, they're close enough for most purposes, and understanding Einstein's stuff is pretty hard.
There is difference between good enough approximation and completely wrong. Some of stuff was last.
Same with models of the atom.
Not same. Physics textbooks for I had had planetary model, while chemistry textbooks explained quantuum mechanics model.
I remember a teacher very excitedly explaining the outdated nature of the map mounted on the wall and showing us the current map. Us 4th graders were not super impressed, but as an adult I'd be just as excited as the teacher
The Middle Ages were not "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition"; the Church did not place religious authority over personal experience and rational activity;
Like hell it didn't.
and the term "Dark Ages" is rejected by modern historians
Because it's a prejudicial term, not because the past isn't fucking shitty.
Might work for some countries, but the problem is that schools in the USA completely lack centralization: each school district is its own separate governing body. Jason was taught that Pilgrims to America were persecuted Christians seeking adventure and made treaties with Natives, while Derek was taught about socioeconomic nuances of 17th-19th Europe leading to incentivized settlements particularly attractive to hardcore religious extremists who then waged relentless war on the Native Americans.
There are no Universal Lies that everybody was taught, except for Dark Matter.
There's a big debate now about whether dark matter really exists or there's a better explanation for how most of the mass of the universe seems to be unable to be perceived. Related to gravitational waves lately I believe.
Take this for what it is I'm not a scientist I just occasionally read science articles.
That was just a bit of snarky commentary, no need to read into it.
Dark matter fits what we observe the best out of all of our models, but we've never observed it despite the many massive detection chambers we've built or probes we've sent out.
Funny thing, I think back to how batshit that education was, and I'd say it was way more moderate bordering on sensible compared to the horseshit they teach today.
That's still very much the case. All planets are, by definition, in our solar system. Any planet-like bodies not in our solar system are called exo-planets.
ITT: People misinterpreting the idea as "facts that your school taught wrong", when it's really saying, "things that have changed since you went to school" (either through a change in definition or by new research).
E.g. If you went to school before the early 2000's, you were taught that Pluto is a planet, while that is no longer true since it was recategorized in 2006.
You should build a mockup site, use it to raise 2M$ for the startup behind it you just created arguing you're about to collect personal data about the age, education level and place, curiosity, etc. with overinflated numbers on their real values.
Then you hire a bench of students, or better: launch a competition for the best "fact you were told that turned out wrong" with a 1k$ prize that you eventually give to some biz angel's investrent adviser's child.
Once data are acquired, claim the company is now worth 10M$ and raise that much in a new round.
Finally, sell the company for 20M$ either to a tech company that will enshitify, paywall and crater it.
You still don't have your website, but now you're rich and you no longer care about these things.
I started a subreddit called facefacts at one point, was gonna debunk Facebook bullshit with a JS bookmarklet, but got too busy with work, then Trump flooded the zone and deleted my Facebook and twitter accounts.
For America, you'll also need to have a drop-down for states. I graduated from high school in California in 2009, and I'm currently working on a medical degree, so I'd be delighted to contribute to this. I'd especially like to help with a sex ed section for Americans.
I’m not sure I’d want to get that granular because of the same fact was taught across the country there’s no need for the redundancy. Also trying to make this a global website helps removing that level of granularity from the states as well.
I would probably start out by proofing or approving them before they post to the site. It say I get a notification read it do a little reading over it and get to a point where I can use a large language model to siphon the submissions.
You wouldn't call a person a dwarf, period. So don't do that. If you ever meet a little person, they'll probably refer to themselves as a little person. You should just follow their lead
A dwarf planet is not a category of planets. It is a category of sub-planetary objects. This is how the term "dwarf planet" was adopted by the IAU in 2006. It did used to mean "type of planet", but there are just too many of them, and they're really too different from planets, so it literally does not mean that anymore. At least to astronomers.
I'm torn on this one, cause recently they've been finding evidence of a 'new' 9th planet, way beyond Pluto's orbit. So I'm on the fence of "there are 8 planets" and "there are 9 planets." 🤔
I ended up making a site that will let people submit facts. They will be fact checked by my till I have the filtering completed. Please check it out and let me know what yall think. It was made to be extensible
The Y2K issue was real, but a lot of people spent a lot of effort to fix it before it became a problem. The dire warnings were exaggerated, it was never going to end the world, but the problem really did exist and it really could have led to some pretty serious issues especially with financial institutions.
I sent the Twitter image to chatgpt to convert the image to text and then I put that text into websim which generated a website that does exactly that and it even handles if you graduated recently and it will link you to a timeline of debunked "facts"
here's the link, enjoy!
https://websim.ai/c/GeEMLk9DuUC23jV9S
I got: "We only use 10% of our brains.Modern neuroimaging has shown that we use most of our brain."
In the 90's I thought this was not in fact, but urban legend, the whole time.
Also: "Christopher Columbus discovered America.Indigenous peoples had been living in the Americas for thousands of years before Columbus arrived."
I didn't realize that it was implied no one was here when he came.
I think that brain one was from a game of telephone with the real fact that a large portion of our brain is dedicated to image processing and object identification. Another portion would be dedicated to sound recognition with a decent amount of circuitry going into the recognition and parsing of speech. Memory will also take up some of the capacity as well as mapping desired actions to sequences of signals for muscle activation. After all the things our brains need to do just to accomplish all these things we take for granted are accounted for, it doesn't leave much capacity left over for thought.
Though, at least in my experience, the most powerful analysis the brain can do is in the subconscious. So many times I've faced a difficult problem where I've been unable to make any progress, take a break, then later return to a much easier problem. Or even with skill development, try doing something too hard for a bit, then sleep on it and try again the next day and it might suddenly be easier. This works best for dexterity skills, I've noticed it a lot in Beat Saber.
So it's like you can take whatever was left over from the first paragraph, then take a small amount of that and that's your conscious thought capacity and the rest is given to subconscious processing.
yeah the issue with "discovered" is cultural interpretation, not factual. If you assume that indigenous people don't count, or if non-aristocrats going there doesn't count as discovery, or if it was discovered by Asian peoples but not yet by Western peoples...
I dunno if a fact-checking website can get into it as it is figuratively and literally critical race theory (ooOOOOooOOOoh!) to have that discussion.
The dumbest shit I've heard throughout my year was at uni, from a physics professor, no less. He, with a straight face, was telling us that highlanders live longer because oxygen content is lower at high altitudes, and since oxygen is an oxidant, it makes people corrode away(??) faster and causes aging.
He was also a Chudinist, which is pseudo-science about searching the words RUS and names of old pagan gods in random, sometimes absolutely ridiculous places, like freshly crumpled A4 sheet or on the surface of the sun, and claiming it to be a sign of existence of greater ancient slavic race.
I once got into an argument with him because he was claiming that lifting an item in hands takes constant amount of energy, no matter how fast you do it. So I challenged him to a 5 minute plank... and he kicked me out from the class. But I didn't care, as I soon flunked out of that uni because he wasn't even the most schizo prof over there.
The first two paragraphs are definitely wild, but I guess you've sorta nerd sniped me with the third paragraph.
It sounds like the professor was talking about the concept of work, in a physics sense. In this sense, work being done on an object is effectively just the difference in energy of that object between a start and end point. When you lift an object, it gains gravitational potential energy due to being higher up (it has farther to fall). If you lift it by the same amount, the amount of energy it gains is the same regardless of whether you do it quickly, slowly, or walk around the room and end up back in the same spot. The end result for the object is the same, so the amount of work done on it is considered to be the same. Obviously, in a common sense, some require more exertion than others--that's just not part of what's considered to be work on the object in that sense.
My physics professor discussed the difference between "work" in the physics sense and "work" in the common sense. As best I can recall (it's been years now), his demonstration was basically that he held something out at arm's length and said something like "it's not moving and not gaining any or losing any potential energy, so as far as physics is concerned, no work is being done on it. But the muscles in my arm certainly don't feel that way!" In both cases, you're actively exerting a force to counter the force of gravity, with the end result being that the object doesn't move, and so its energy stays the same. Thus, no work is done on that object as far as physics is concerned.
I'm not sure this extends to planking, though--your body is the object, in that case, and you're expending chemical energy to maintain that position. It's all a matter of what you include in the analysis, I guess. Reading up on it, the concept of work in physics only seems to be concerned with forces and motion; I guess that makes sense, since it is physics. With that in mind, I guess planking would also be considered doing 0 work (again, in a physics sense).
You've had a great prof! Mine unfortunately wasn't as good and just handed me the book and asked how much energy it would take to lift it. Myself, thinking of muscles as linear motors rather than solid structures, said something along the lines of: "Depends on how fast you want me to do it. Just holding it I have to exert something like 10 watts, give or take", and he went absolutely wild, calling me names and saying that I'm dumb for even asking it, implying that it takes no energy to hold things, hence the plank challenge. Gotta admit, though, that I might have missed the topic of that particular lecture as I wasn't paying as much attention to it as I was about writing everything down with perfect formatting in LaTeX, hoping to catch up before the exams... Which got me in trouble with another prof who denied me from even taking the exam because she thought I was playing games during her lectures (I was the only student who brought a laptop), and to get to her I had to deal with a yet another prof who thought I was an outlaw biker because she saw me wearing a leather jacket, and tried to humiliate me in front of the board. Still a step up from a different uni that had the audacity to post a price-list for the grades on the door to exam room... One is the top university in my home region and second is mid-tier in the capital, so this is basically the sad state of academia in Russia, and, by certain extent, CIS countries. Speaking of which, do you happen to know any good (and preferably free) online courses on maths and physics? I know about khan academy, but it's a bit hard for me to chew through, and 3blue1brown who's been absolutely invaluable in clearing some of the crucial concepts I needed both for work and for learning stuff in general. Even though I'm fairly well off without it, I'd like to someday figure out what's the deal with quantum computing is, and not just that "a qubit is both 1 and 0 at the same time" which doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
There's barely information about him in English, but he basically wrote quite a few books "decoding" words off shitty photocopies of photos of historic artifacts. He was largely a laughing stock, but he did get a few followers, mostly elderly with early onset dementia, but also notably a few of high profile personalities, maybe even a couple of Putin's advisors.
For laughs, here are some of the most famous examples of his "deciphering" works:
This seems very specific to one teacher and not so much as the common shared misinformation that was circulating around more than one classroom as per the post topic.
Okay but should I put in the year I graduated or the year of our textbooks/curriculum? Because my U.S. history textbook had an assignment for the "present day" to write about the "ongoing" war in iraq under "current" president George W. Bush. Spoiler, I did not go to HS when bush was president.
By being a life-long learner! Seriously, learning is an active thing, it's not something we have to be sitting in a room to receive. So as we read and learn more, we realize that some of the things we learned are different from what we thought. It's something we should all be doing as we learn and reflect.
My teachers told us, with all honesty, than the reason “the blacks” (yes, they said it just like that in a tone you expect) are better athletes is because they have an extra muscle in their legs.
This was while there were African American students in the class. In second grade.
It's kind of a fun idea, but as everyone has pointed out: every school is different, even of there is some centralized board of education, some times teachers just say dumb shit.
Also, when does a fact become a fact? Like, dinosaurs had feathers. It was theorized, then debated, then clarified, and now there are some reasonable consensus about it, but theropauds probably still aren't presented as having feathers in some books. And what teachers know this?
Or you get common misconceptions that were never facts. Like you only use 10% of your brain. I don't think science ever said that, but man the idea is/was really common.
There are also plenty of things in science that are taught that are technically incorrect, but give you a working model that you can build on later. The atomic model being a rather typical example.
Public school book adoption is between 8-12 years (Texas). And they only have to meet 50% of the state learning objectives. I hope the point of this post of to encourage life long learning and developing critical thinking skills.