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.

Why was the Dark Ages section removed?

It was well sourced. But alas, anti-Catholicism prevails. 184.96.219.51 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

When was it removed? Did the editor write an Edit summary? HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm restoring it. Thanks for pointing it out -- LightSpectra (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but... I didn't remove it or anything, but I dunno. Not an expert, but I always thought that "Dark Ages" only applied to the early Middle Ages. However, I'll grant that it's quite possibly true that the average man in the street Dark Ages == Middle Ages, so yeah, I suppose it's OK on that basis. Herostratus (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is only meant to mean the early middle ages, but that's still a misconception. Modern scholars almost universally reject that notion. -- LightSpectra (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a lack of sourcing for the claim that "It is also erroneously claimed that the Roman Catholic Church suppressed scientific advancement during this era" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.55.210 (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid. That the Roman Catholic Church has been blamed for suppressed scientific advancement is very' commonly stated. Heck, I even learned that at school. As long as we have a source for the opposite, we should be fine. Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hypothermia in infants

The article states (under Human Body and Health) "it has been shown that hats effectively prevent hypothermia in infants." I'd like to suggest a slight rewording. I created an account to change this, but I can't modify the page yet. It should read "it has been shown that warm hats can significantly reduce the risk of hypothermia in infants." The current phrasing suggests that 'hats' WILL prevent hypothermia in infants, which is only true in some cases (the ambient temperature and the rest of the infants clothes contribute significantly). It's more accurate to say that hats reduce the risk.
Xephyrous (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree but I'd change "infants" to "newborns".Sjö (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I've rewritten two sentences, because the cited study was not about the condition of hypothermia per se, but about quantifying thermal stress and heat loss in uncovered infants and newborns under care. I've added two additional studies, after searching for "gamgee lined hat" (heh). --Lexein (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice correction, I like it, thanks. How does this work now, do I delete this section of the discussion page? (I'm the original poster) Xephyrous (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We tend not to delete helpful discussions. This one will automatically eventually roll off into the archives and be available upon searching. --Lexein (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Founding Fathers

it can not be overstated that the founders of the United States were NOT right-wing pillars of Christianity for their time period, they were probably the most liberal men on the face of the earth and while some of them may have been practicing Christians, the leaders were all Free Masons, and believed more in science and philosophy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.160.159 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is so true. I can't wait to see the new section. Someone needs to get to work and don't forget the sources. 184.96.230.182 (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if the wording will be exactly what we are looking for, but several articles in TIME magazine and The Economist have certainly strongly implied the existence of such a misconception. Dr bab (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It can be overstated, but that's not the first problem we'd face if the topic was to be introduced to the article. First, the American founding didn't take place in the context of the French Revolution, so "right-wing" isn't a relevant descriptor. Second, if the left-to-right political spectrum were to be anachronistically introduced, and the change in meaning of "left" and "right" over time explained, there'd be an endless war on which the founders were. Third, Who's a founder? You've got declaration signers, convention attendees, soldiers, writers, presidents, foreign aristocracy, etc. Fourth, Who and/or what is a "pillar"? Is that a measure of being devout or statement on the degree of Christian-ness? If the former, does frequency of church attendance provide a measure? If the later, what scores do we give Unitarians? Methodists? Catholics?

That fact of the matter is that the founders were a politically and religiously diverse bunch... radicals, conservatives, populists, elitists, religiously orthodox, and freethinking. No one is going to fit all of this into a succinct, neutral paragraph stating "the founders were/were not x". Armandthecorsair (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good article on the Pilgrims [1] Wayne (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Founding Fathers" is too vague a term to make any definitive statements about their beliefs. What you said rings totally true of Thomas Jefferson, not so much of Benjamin Rush or John Adams. -- LightSpectra (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Mammal blood as blue

It is STILL a common misconception that mammal blood is blue! I just argued this point last week with friends. I was the only one who knew that it wasn't! You guys force us to provide all this "proof" that it is a "common misconception". Do you want us to poll all of our friends on every misconception we've ever heard and report back the results? In order to keep this page interesting and INFORMATIVE, we need to relax our standards a bit. Providing proof and sources for other Wikipedia articles is fine. But misconceptions are LARGELY carried by word of mouth. That is MUCH harder to reference. But it still makes them entirely relevant.

I read the talk page way back in which someone in the medical field stated that they knew of NO ONE who believed this. Yet Being 27 years old, I STILL know many people who believe this. Eminem made a reference to it in one of his songs. Google the lyrics to "Still Don't Give a Fuck". And no, I don't listen to Eminem. The point is, that just because ONE OR TWO people on Wikipedia don't think that something is a common misconception, DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT ISN'T! My biology teacher in HIGH SCHOOL argued that blood was blue, and I showed him in our book where it said that it wasn't. He said the book was wrong. IT IS a common misconception. It should be referenced here. As should many other things that I'm reading in the talk section which are removed because their exist "no source which lists them as common misconceptions" COME ON! All of these deleted things that I've read ARE INDEED common misconceptions! But like I said, it's harder to prove, as they are largely carried by word of mouth.

StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read the box at the top entitled 'Please read before proposing new entries' and also WP:VNT.Number36 (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

So your're basically saying we should not require sources for this article since it is somehow different from the rest of Wikipedia? By using "word of mouth" as reference, we would basically open up for absolutely everything. Any editor could make up complete nonsense and add it, and any inclusion-arguments on the talk page would be impossible to resolve, as pointing to sources should apparently not be good enough. For your "blue-blood" misconception for example, I have never heard of anyone believing mammal blood is blue (have these people never seen uncooked meat?), and would never yield in a talk page discussion if the arguments for inclusion were "word of mouth". However, point to a reliable source that explains this, and I'd be happy to include it. Dr bab (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is true or not does not matter. The inclusion criteria is that it should be verifiable with reliable sources. I'm afraid there are plenty of things that are true that do not make it into Wikipedia. --Mlewan (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't get this. Mammalian blood varies between bright red and a bluish red depending on how much oxygen it is carrying. But as soon as we bleed, it's obvious it's basically red. What kind of person would ague that it is blue? HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea comes from the fact that the veins of people with pale skin look blue and is reinforced by references to the "blue blood" of nobility. Very pale skin in mediaeval Europe signified that the person spent much time inside and could afford sun protection, whereas most people slept in overcrowded houses and spent most of the time outside. (Obviously, the effect is also more visible when the skin is clean.) This source claims that the term came from Spain, where the large Moorish (mostly 'black') population must have been an additional factor.

Whether you believe that blood can be blue (as some responders here seem to do -- note that this is in no way a reliable source that it's a common misconception) or not depends mostly on whether as a child, you understand (1) that the colour of the veins is not precisely the colour of the blood, and (2) that the "blue blood" of nobility is just a manner of speaking. It is easy to miss these two facts, since you may have no reason to even ask about this, some adults have the misconception, some adults speak to children using irony which they don't get, and many parents actively discourage their children from asking such knowledge questions. Hans Adler 10:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Once you even entertain the possibility that (some) blood might be blue, the next step is to take the colours used in anatomical drawings too seriously. By convention, arteries are drawn red and veins are drawn blue. Add to this the fact that blood without oxygen is darker (although by no means blueish), and we get the somewhat more refined misconception that deoxygenated blood is purple. This is a pretty interesting post on the topic.

It does appear to me that this is a common misconception, after all, and we just need to find a good reliable source that says so. Maybe this? If anyone can check this book out from a library it might help. Hans Adler 10:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Dr. Bab, The idea is that blood inside of our bodies is blue, but as soon as it touches oxygen (i.e., the majority gas in the air we breathe) it turns blue. Therefore, no meat, no cuts, no blood outside the body would be blue, as it's touched oxygen. Furthermore, the appearance of blue veins (as stated above) causes people to believe that it is the color of blood making it that way. Again, I have numerous word of mouth references to prove that it is indeed a common misconception. Snopes does not require such references, just inquiries, and they don't manage to get bogged down by every little thing, as you say. Regardless, I will submit this for them to post instead. I STILL firmly believe that this is one example of us tearing this great (once even better) article apart because of this problem of sources. If it's a popular belief (hence "common" misconception), that comes in many forms. Written, word of mouth, etc. StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, as opposed to Snopes, an encyclopedia. Snopes may create their content based on inquiries alone, posting them as "Many people have asked...". That is not the way an encyclopedia works. As Mlewan states, many things that are true does not make it into Wikipedia. When you hit the "edit"-button in Wikipedia, there is a comment under the editing window: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Clicking that link takes you to the following statement:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Without this demand for verifiability, how could anyone trust any material on Wikipedia? Without this demand, how could you prevent that this site is used to spread NEW misconceptions? You're blue blood misconception, for example, might lead people to believe that "People in the US are so thick, they think blood is blue". There really is no way to get around the demand for reliable sources. They do not need to be written, but they must be verifiable. From Hans Adlers post, it is possible that such sources exist. I encourage you to try and find such sources, rather than rant about Wikipedia rules. If you don't have the time or energy to do this, you might be lucky enough that the people over at Snopes dig up some sources if they decide to cover this. Dr bab (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia mandate vs. this article (propose deletion?)

I've read the guidelines, and I hate to say it, but the existence of this article does not fit into the Wikipedia mandate. This should be on any website on the internet other than Wikipedia. Among other considerations,

1. Nothing of this kind would ever be found in a real encyclopedia… as a genre of non-fiction, this simply does not fit under the heading of an encyclopedia entry.

2. At least hypothetically, the scope of the article is infinite

3. Thirdly, a large portion of the misconceptions worth pointing out will be about the sort of contentious/unsettled issues that Wikipedia is very bad at broaching (and, indeed, that encyclopedias generally can't say much about aside from "opinions differ…").

4. Finally, within the near-infinite range of such misconceptions, the Wikipedia format would not have any guidelines as to sorting or prioritizing which ones were of significance. Yeah, Ancient Rome has some amusing examples… but how much would the list expand if you gave equal billing to misconceptions about ancient China? Ancient Egypt? Modern China? Modern Egypt? In every period and on every continent, the scope is near-infinite… and nobody is going to be able to edit it (and neither expanding nor contracting it would make an encyclopedia article out of the thing). These are discussions worth having, but… elsewhere (is anyone else here old enough to remember Snopes.com that was created for this purpose generations ago, relative to the internet timescale?).

Would anyone second a motion to archive this on another website (or create a wholly unique website for this purpose of "debunking" and challenging popular misconceptions?)

You're welcome to take the article to WP:AfD if you feel strongly about it, however, the article passed its last AfD, and is now in far better shape than then. You're also welcome to copy it to another site if you wish, without deleting it here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If it really is in better shape (and I have my doubts) that's only because of the near constant vigilance of editors like me and others who, in truth, would also like to see it deleted. I don't want to try to give reasons here. It is too time consuming. Our OP has made a good start. It's very un-encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It serves a purpose, and a number of editors have put quite a bit of work into it. I say let it live. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mandidate is to provide educational content. Clearing up common misconceptions is most definitely educational content. In fact, this is one of our best articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor originating this thread makes a good point. My view is that there are few -- a very few -- articles where we can relax the standards a little, and this is one of them, provided it's well-maintained and watched and kept trimmed, which it is. Herostratus (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A "real encyclopedia"?! What is that supposed to mean? Wikipedia is currently the best collection of human facts all categories. I do not know what a "real" encyclopaedia would be, but it is probably nothing I would want. Before Wikipedia, there were encyclopaedias whose facts were not verified by millions of people, that had a page layout that had to adapt to the fact that it was not searchable, that lacked hyperlinks and had low quality illustrations. They were, compared to Wikipedia, pretty useless. That is hardly an ideal to try to live up to for Wikipedia articles. All this talk about "encyclopaedic" material only dumbs down Wikipedia. --Mlewan (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on the arguments so far.

• Bad arguments for deletion

• "hypothetically, the scope of the article is infinite" - The same is true for hundreds of other Wikipedia articles. Hence Category:Incomplete lists, Category:Dynamic lists, List of supernovae, List of inorganic compounds, etc. The key word in the article title is "common"; depending on how we define "common", the complete list of common misconceptions may actually be quite small.
• "a large portion of the misconceptions worth pointing out will be about the sort of contentious/unsettled issues" - Then either remove those entries, or note that in some cases we know that certain misconceptions are false even though we haven't totally confirmed what the right answer is. For instance, there may be three answers to a question, A B C. Most laypeople believe A; half the experts believe B; and half the experts believe C. Assuming the experts can substantiate their rejection of A as a plausible account, A would certainly qualify as a 'common misconception'. But honestly, I'm not seeing which entries on the current list you think are contentious. Could you give some examples?
• "how much would the list expand if you gave equal billing to misconceptions about ancient China? Ancient Egypt? Modern China? Modern Egypt?" - Personally, I think List of common misconceptions in ancient China would make a fascinating, highly useful encyclopedia article. What's wrong with having a top-level list for multiregional misconceptions, and daughter lists for culturally particular myths?

• Good arguments for deletion

• "the Wikipedia format would not have any guidelines as to sorting or prioritizing which ones were of significance" - This isn't insurmountable. Wikipedia does have 'notability' and 'fame' criteria that it regularly employs. But ordinarily we arbitrate notability by citing sources. To do that in this case, we must cite sources that show that each of the claims in question is (a) a frequent misconception (ideally, reputable polling data), and (b) a notably frequent misconception (e.g., it's not something boring like 'most people think the things on the ends of shoelaces have no name').
• "Nothing of this kind would ever be found in a real encyclopedia" - This isn't a knock-down argument. Wikipedia hosts tons of content you'd never find in an ordinary encyclopedia, like Timeline of the Turkish War of Independence, List of 1933 ballet premieres, List of soundtracks to fictitious films, List of animals with fraudulent diplomas, Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, List of sexual positions, New car smell, List of Pokémon (252–319), Introduction to evolution, List of Latin phrases, or Where's the beef?. Wikipedia is a dynamic and multi-strategy educational resource.
  • At the same time, there are many things Wikipedia isn't. "Clearing up common misconceptions is most definitely educational content." is a bad argument for keeping this list around, because there are thousands of things Wikipedia could do to clear up misconceptions that wouldn't fall within its encyclopedic purview, like absorbing WikiHow, or campaigning against the Republican Party,, or incorporating Google Maps directions to get to places, or publishing quizzes at the bottom of each page to see how many misconceptions people cleared up in the process. Both sides need to more clearly and concretely articulate what it is about this particular page that makes it fall (or not fall) within the scope of the mission of this particular encyclopedia (and not, say, some other branch of the WikiMedia foundation). "Wikipedia is currently the best collection of human facts all categories." is an even worse argument, since, if we took it seriously as an argument against deletion here, it would us to incorporate [[Wiktionary], the complete corpus of all English literature, and the name and address of every human being into the English Wikipedia. Just because something is useful doesn't make it encyclopedic, or, if you prefer, 'Wikipedic'. -Silence (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is encouraging to see that people care… there are many other sections of wikipedia that totally lack editorial oversight of this kind… I would counter-pose just two more points here:

1. While it has been said that many of these points are contentious/dubious by nature, there is a special problem resulting from their gathering under this common heading where the tiny number of people who "know better" are unlikely to engage with them. Many of these points require scrutiny from specialists that they won't receive here.

In this context, of a miscellaneous article (not under the editorial oversight of any one discipline or science) it is vexatious and invidious to try to start discussions that would draw in people with unrelated expertise. I hate to point it out (e.g.) but one of the "misconceptions about Buddhism" is itself a misconception: what is currently footnote number 345 links to a very causal posting on a website (Buddhanet.net) that would not be taken seriously (as a source of information) by any editors at a real encyclopedia, and, in fact, the point it is making can be refuted by references to material that already exists within wikipedia, e.g. Yama (Buddhism and Chinese mythology). Now, I don't want to bore anyone here by getting into details (and the issue really is boring to non-specialists, and this is a problem with discussing it on the same page as Thomas Crapper's contribution to the toilet, etc.) but this is a matter that involves pious fraud of a sort, and, like many contentious things in religion and politics, it can't easily be resolved (because there are strong biases within the tiny number of people who contribute to those issues on Wikipedia). It is also the sort of problem that Wikipedia policy should help us to avoid. It is contentious to say that there is no "judge" in "the afterlife" for Buddhists, indeed, it is a point easily refuted by anyone… but it wouldn't be refuted here (on this miscellaneous list of supposed misconceptions…) and this lack of scrutiny from salient specialists is a special problem with this approach to the material (i.e., some of these claims might be debated properly if they appeared elsewhere on the Wiki). As boring as this example may be, however, it is odious to see something like this treated as if it were a self-evident fact, along the same lines as Thomas Crapper's role in the manufacture of the toilet --and it is prejudicial to see such diverse controversies put under one heading, as if the wikipedia were equal arbiter of of them all.

2. Nobody is saying that these debates shouldn't exist, and nobody is saying that this content should cease to exist… but it probably should be on a different website.

As per the one example I just mentioned, I wouldn't want to drag anyone into a discussion of it here, and these types of debates should transpire in a non-anonymous setting between people with demonstrable expertise, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.84.194 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any claim about afterlife judges on the List. However, I do see "Siddhārtha Gautama possessed no salvific properties" here, which is demonstrably false. Although it's true that orthodox Buddhists don't consider Gautama a god, his superpowers in many traditional digests are more impressive than those possessed by gods — omniscience, omnipresence, perfect skillfulness, a magical cranial protuberance, etc. On the other hand, I don't think this argument works; List of common misconceptions actually receives more traffic than most of the topic-specific articles in question. I think it's an open question whether random Buddhism experts browsing the Internet are more likely to stumble over Yama (Buddhism and Chinese mythology) than they are to stumble over List of common misconceptions. If anything, this article could be a gateway for more experts to find the articles they have expertise in, and more laypeople to gain access to relevant facts about those disciplines. The main problem is Wikipedia's general problem with inter-article consistency; editors at one article must be kept up-to-date on changes to summaries or references to that article from elsewhere, else the whole encyclopedia will grow apart from itself. This is a systemic problem, not one that's unique to this page. If I were to suggest a solution, it would be providing a list of 'Relevant sections of irrelevant articles' for WikiProjects to regularly check up on. For instance, WP:AST might want to keep a special eye on List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Astronomy_and_astrophysics as well as List_of_common_misconceptions#Astronomy. -Silence (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Too much of the content of this article is of the form "I know a fact and I want to show that I'm smarter than all those dummies who think differently by showing off my fact on Wikipedia." We have no meaningful measure of how many of those "dummies" need to exist. We don't address why they think the wrong thing. A very contentious issue here is about that particular set of dummies who believe that Obama is Muslim, or not a natural born American. They believe those things because of political bigotry over-riding truth. Is that a misconception? (Please don't try to answer. This isn't the place for that discussion. It's the fact that the question exists that is the problem.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I grasp the problem. If we were doing a more topic-focused article, like List of misconceptions about American presidents, I think the Obama fact would be totally relevant and citable. Suppose we find reputable sources (PEW polls, science textbook, etc.) alleging that something is a common misconception, a myth, etc. I'll agree with you that absent such sourcing, a list like this is very dubious. But what's your argument if you want to say that even with such sourcing, a claim by Wikipedia that X is a 'misconception' is not adequately fortified? -Silence (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The title says "Common Misconception", not just "Misconception". We have had considerable argument about what "Common" means. Does it mean something that is common across the globe, or just in one country, or just among less well educated supporters of a particular political party in one country who choose to ignore considerable, already available evidence proving that their belief is wrong? HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What qualifies as notable? Does it mean something's notable across the globe, or just in one country, or....? What hard facts can we cite to demonstrate when something is notable? In 2010, 20% of U.S. citizens said that their President was a Muslim or other non-Christian. Considering the population of the U.S., that's over 45 million people. At that point, I'd say that's relatively "common"; perhaps not common enough to belong on List of common misconceptions, but in principle common enough for some page about particular sorts of misconceptions to cite it as an example, and with statistical evidence to back it up. -Silence (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't regard the belief that Obama is Muslim to be a misconception, common or otherwise. It's dogma, in the face of rational reading of masses of evidence. It's a deliberate avoidance of the truth. Misconceptions occur when someone hasn't had the chance to learn the truth about something. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the 'Obama is Muslim' belongs here. That's more of a conspiracy theory than a misconception. Does anyone object if I remove it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove it? Read the conversation again. To my knowledge, that fact has never been on this article. HiLo48 brought it up as a hypothetical test case. It's just that we disagree about the hypothetical's implications, and if we can't agree on a baseline case we can't draw conclusions generalizing over the actual cases. -Silence (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It used to be on here, there are discussions on this in the archive. Dr bab (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! No one's seriously suggesting it be re-added, though. (Even if it were a misconception, I think 'live' misconceptions, about ongoing current events, should be minimized since they're so likely to change from month to month.) -Silence (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fringe as it may be, it's still truth to people who hold that view, also believing that the truth presented in mainstream outlets is a government-perpetrated lie. It's more of a POV issue than anything else. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a set of sentences that's fairly immune to the sorts of charitable interpretations that might make of them something beyond nonsense. "Truth to people who hold that view"? All misconceptions are "truths" in that sense, i.e., untruths that happen to be beliefs. HiLo48's argument was far more relevant: The idea that a "misconception" is purely subtractive (it's merely a matter of lacking some fact which, were you presented with it, would immediately enlighten you), whereas conspiracy theories and dogmas of the sort in question are additive, i.e., clearing them up requires eliminating certain bad rules for processing information and faulty data points/experiences, not just adding new data points into the mix. -Silence (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I like this definition of misconception, which is a reason why I am sceptical about including "mathematical misconceptions" such as the monty hall problem. It is a serious weakness of this article, in my opinion, that we do not have a good definition of "misconception". Dr bab (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's a misconception to think that the wrong solution to the Monty Hall problem is straightforwardly correct, or that 0.999... is universally agreed to be distinct from 1. In other words, the naive, totally uneducated view is a misconception. Now, if someone is educated on the matter and still refuses to 'come around,' then he might be harboring a delusion or a deviant theory of mathematics, rather than a mere misconception; but I think we can allow that 0.999... != 1 is a misconception even if not everyone who believes in it is suffering from that misconception (because some people believe in things like infinitesimals). Similarly, "Barack Obama is a muslim" is a misconception if you're a kid who just think that's a universally acknowledged fact and has never been exposed to the standard view of Obama's religiosity; it only ceases to be a misconception when it becomes immunized to (and, therefore, to some extent aware of) the evidence. So including 0.999 here and leaving out Obama's Christianity could be justified on the grounds that most people with the former belief have a misconception-belief (remedied by adding data points), whereas most people with the latter belief have a dogmatic-belief (remedied by removing data points or other cognitive architecture). -Silence (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, if you want to draw the line, do just that – find multiple WP:RS that hold a concrete definition of "misconception" and stick with it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Phases of the moon

I was wondering if we could list the misconception that the phases of the moon are due to the Earth's shadow being cast onto it. Wikipedia's article on phases of the Moon says in the first sentence of the overview:

"they are not caused by the shadow of the Earth or umbra falling on the Moon's surface (this occurs only during a lunar eclipse)."

NASA's Q&A "Ask an astrobiologist" on phases of the moon mentions:

"Lunar eclipses take place when the Moon moves through the shadow of the Earth, and solar eclipses when the Earth moves through the shadow of the Moon. Shadows have nothing to do with phases, which are just a matter of the angle of illumination."

Also, HowStuffWorks Dark Side of the Moon article states:

"A common misconception about the moon is that a new moon occurs when the Earth blocks light from the sun, casting the moon into shadow."

And, anecdotally, it seems whenever phases of the moon is brought up on reddit, people always give the incorrect reason. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing

Is there anyway where this could be organized into a table or something where the misconception is on one side and the explanation is on the other? Some of these make it sound like the misconception is the fact or vice versa. 209.173.75.182 (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your second sentence. I would be interested in seeing how a table would look. Anyone got the time and skills to create a sample? HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a table would be the best option, as some of the items on here are quite lengthy. But I support a common format. Dr bab (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Telephone

Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the telephone. He was, however, the first to obtain a patent, in 1876, and to develop a commercially succesful and practical device. --95.117.204.23 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the section at the top headed Please read before proposing new entries. It's important that entries be structured as described there. HiLo48 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, it is often worthwile to check the archives. I liked a comment by Cresix in the archive, where it is stated that:

More importantly, however, a resolution by the U.S. House of Representatives is not unequivocal evidence that Bell did not invent the telephone. A House resolution has no force of law (it's just the opinion of the majority of members; and even U.S. laws must also be passed by the U.S. Senate); and even if it were a law, a law does not determine historical fact. The U.S. Congress could pass a "law" that the Earth is flat, but that wouldn't make the Earth flat. I realize that there has long been controversy about who invented the telephone, and I think if you look at reliable sources you will not get a firm answer. For one thing, how do we define "invent"?

Dr bab (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The suggested text by 95.117.204.23|95.117.204.23 is quite accurate and has nothing to do with whether the U.S. Congress recognized earlier work or not. Also, it fulfill the criteria by having an article of it's own (Invention of the telephone) and being supported by literature, e.g. Coe, Lewis (1995), The Telephone and Its Several Inventors: A History, McFarland, North Carolina, 1995. ISBN 0-7864-0138-9 Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So the misconception is that "Alexander Graham Bell did single handedly invent the telephone", whereas the reality is that "his work was heavily dependent on earlier work by many different individuals?". What is the definition of "inventing"? Could we phrase it so that "The myth is A, but the reality is complex?" I'm not sure if I am comfortable with this, especially in cases where "The myth is A, but the reality is complex but not totally different from A". From the Invention of the telephone article, it is not indisputably clear to me that Bell did not invent the telephone.Dr bab (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nutrition Food and Drink

Can someone please add the myth that eating before bed is bad, "because the body stores fat at night". This is wrong because the body stores fat all day long, and all through the night. The only thing wrong with eating before bed is you might get troubled sleep from: heartburn from lying down with food in your stomach, and other digestive issues.

I've argued with many people over this. It's a very common misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.175.225 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the section at the top of this page headed Please read before proposing new entries. It's important that entries be structured as described there. HiLo48 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, right after the 4 points necessary for inclusion, it says to: "include your rationale for inclusion." There are lots of articles online about this misconception, many people still believe it. That's my rationale. If it won't get included because it doesn't have a page of its own, well, then it should have a page of it's own too. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, so I'll leave that up to the pros. I just wanted to put out an idea, maybe someone will agree and run with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.175.225 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)