Thread: False Myths

Myth: dimethyltriptamine is produced in the pineal gland of the human brain.

Fact: DMT has never been found being produced in the human brain. This myth begins with Dr. Rick Strassman's hypothesis that the pineal gland releases a massive amount of DMT during death, based on the fact that several test subjects administered DMT experienced NDE-like hallucinations.

Fact: DMT has been found in trace amounts in blood, urine, feces and the lungs. But we know pretty well how it's biosynthesized at this point, and it's not produced by the Pineal

Here's another that I wish our public schools would understand:

Myth: Different parts of your tongue are keyed into different tastes

Fact: Every single tastebud is receptive to all 5 types of taste.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

By the way this is a good page

List of common misconceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh wonderful - so pretty much my entire education was a series of lies..

Yeah, reading that article feels a little like being repeatedly slapped in the face with a wet towel by reality.

In fact it causes one to wonder as to the fate of urban myths in the post-net era.

Another one: the Big Bang was not an outward explosion of space from a point, but rather an inflation of space itself. You cannot go 'visit where the Big Bang happened', it happened at every point in modern space. In addition, the observational boundary of the universe is not the boundary of the universe; it's just the furthest we can see. Nobody knows what the geometry of the entire universe is, but the most common hypothesis is that it's infinite.

That wiki page was awesome, I was corrected in a thing or three and will now be even more annoying when I correct people around me who think they know stuff. The funny thing is I've never really believed people when they say like: "Dogs can only sweat through their breathing, that's why they're panting when it's hot" unless it's been logical. When I was a kid I absorbed most things adults told me and I actually believed that "sugar" was the word for "butter" for a very long time since I saw it on a TV show. When I got older I realised that most adults just hear things other adults have heard and not to seem like a know-it-all they accept it as fact. This is something I've been experimenting with at work a bit, there's no way for people to know if the stuff I talk about is true or not as long as I talk about the subject confidently. No one can be bothered to look things up and if they don't believe you, they talk about it behind your back instead.

Myth: Batteries last longer if you keep them in the fridge.

Fact: The older ones did last longer, but not the new ones. (This is something I've heard and not checked out properly, sorry!) *EDIT* Okay the newer ones last less than 5% longer, but you can't use them if they're cold so you'll have to warm them up first. It's not recommended to store any new batteries in the freezer or fridge.

Originally Posted by Matte87

When I got older I realised that most adults just hear things other adults have heard and not to seem like a know-it-all they accept it as fact. This is something I've been experimenting with at work a bit, there's no way for people to know if the stuff I talk about is true or not as long as I talk about the subject confidently.

One thing about that wiki page - it's a wiki page, and can be edited by anybody. I mean, I'm not saying they're all lies, but at least it would be good to hear some information to back some of the claims up. A few do provide at least minimal info, such as the idea that pilgrims wearing big buckles and all black clothing was a result of artistic license and the 19th century idea of buckles as 'quaint'. I suppose we're all free to investigate further on any that pique our interest. That can be a catch-22 though - you can find contradictory evidence for any claim and it can be hard to determine which is truer. Though most of those myths do seem rather silly and I don't doubt that most of the counter-claims are true.

It seems like the information age is a time of increasing attempts at historical accuracy (as well as a time of lies and misinformation spread willy nilly all over the web). I'm not sure how I feel about that - it's disconcerting to say the least to have so many 'facts' disintegrate all at one blow - part of me is glad to be seeing through the veil and getting closer to the truth, part of me is angry that I was lied to (though undoubtedly unknowingly for the most part) and part of me feels like at my age it hardly matters - I could have happily gone to my grave misinformed and not knowing any better. Buy all in all I must say I'd rather know the facts.

Originally Posted by Xei

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

One thing about that wiki page - it's a wiki page, and can be edited by anybody. I mean, I'm not saying they're all lies, but at least it would be good to hear some information to back some of the claims up.

Wait... you know how Wikipedia works, right..?

Originally Posted by Xei

Wait... you know how Wikipedia works, right..?

How is what he said different from how it works?

As I understand it, anybody can edit anything, so for instance if someone with an agenda wanted to they could change articles to suit their own aims. Of course, eventually I assume someone else would change it again. Or have I been decieved about wikipedia too?

I'm pretty sure that's how it works and don't know what Xei's talking about. There are people who will re-edit things every day about more important issues. My Biology professor once told us that he edited some error he found, but his edit was gone the next day. Unless I've been deceived about how it works too.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

As I understand it, anybody can edit anything, so for instance if someone with an agenda wanted to they could change articles to suit their own aims. Of course, eventually I assume someone else would change it again. Or have I been decieved about wikipedia too?

Yes... every controversial fact has a citation. That's what the little numbers are for. I think every claim on the page we're talking about has one or more.

How does that change anything? People can still edit it to whatever they want, without providing citations, or citing websites that promote their viewpoint.

You know, I've never actually clicked on the numbers before. I did assume they were citations, and it's good to know they are. Now I feel like an idiot.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

How does that change anything?

...well it changes the conception expressed in Darkmatters' post? That is, that none of the claims on that page are backed up by anything. That's what we were talking about.

Myth: Anyone can add anything they want to wikipedia

Fact: If you edit things erroneously your username can be flagged and if you continue to troll wikipedia with randomness you can eventually be prohibited from editing altogether. Granted you can always just make a new account.

Also all edits are flagged instantly and wikipedia has a legion of interested scholars to comb through edits. Then they have the opportunity to discuss the validity of edits. That's why sometimes you get the message that the information is not verified and may not be true, and sometimes the edits are just removed. Typically if the guy who wrote the original article doesn't like what you added, it'll just get removed, whereas if someone writes a new article with unverified information, it'll just get flagged as unverified.

This is why I hated it when teachers said we weren't allowed to do research on wikipedia. I think the opportunity for open, unfiltered scrutiny makes wikipedia more accurate than a source of information from a bunch of obdurate elitists.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

You know, I've never actually clicked on the numbers before. I did assume they were citations, and it's good to know they are. Now I feel like an idiot.

Actually I worded that very poorly - I should have said that I know they're citations, but I hardly ever bother to click on them, unless something really jumps out at me and makes me say WTF??!! - so I usually don't even think about the citations, and hadn't bothered to click on any tonight. In fact it wasn't until I made my comment here (only AFTER reading partially through the wiki article) that I even thought about citations etc.

An example of not caring enough to write out a detailed explanation so I just spit out some stupid statement that's only half true.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

An example of not caring enough to write out a detailed explanation so I just spit out some stupid statement that's only half true.

this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends

Originally Posted by 4chan

this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends

Not with a whimper, but with a bang. Who are you, 4chan?

Originally Posted by Xei

There are different strains of Buddhism.

>_>

>_>

Oops :O. I couldn't find a single page on the internet that said he was a God though >_>

Originally Posted by Xei

There are different strains of Buddhism.

>_>

Scientists predict that in 15 years it will have mutated into an incurable super strain that wipes us all out.

Originally Posted by Xei

...well it changes the conception expressed in Darkmatters' post? That is, that none of the claims on that page are backed up by anything. That's what we were talking about.

Okay, fair enough. But I doubt most people actually check the citations. If what Omnis says is true, though, bad information won't likely make its way there. For popular or important topics, at least. But I'd still imagine some more obscure and less popular topics might have bad information.

Mannnnnn, life ain't nuthin but bad info. Respec.







or is that a myth?