Talk:List of common misconceptions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCList of common misconceptions is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 29, 2006Articles for deletionNo consensus
March 24, 2009Articles for deletionKept
February 8, 2011Articles for deletionNo consensus
April 25, 2011Featured list candidateNot promoted
September 26, 2018Articles for deletionKept
December 22, 2023Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former featured list candidate


Rabbits regularly eat carrots[edit]

Not part of their natural diet, not good for them, can be deadly if fed regularly Started w Bugs Bunny (itself a reference to a scene in "It Happened One Night") Celdin7 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it passes #3 of the criteria, "the common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." A string search on Carrot finds no mention of "rabbit", and on Rabbit, no mention of "carrot". signed, Willondon (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rabbit article does, however, state that the rabbit's diet consists of grass and hay, and thus at least implicitly supports this. The point would obviously include the fact that rabbits eat grass and hay, so maybe this would be enough? This misconception seems like a good fit for the article, and it seems wrong that it should not be included due to what amounts to a technicality. Alex the weeb (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to count as a common misconception. [1][2] The information should be added to the rabbit article first, though. It would also be nice to get a reliable source for the claim that Bugs Bunny introduced this belief. That apparently started as a spoof of a scene in a Clark Gable movie [3], but of course Quora is not a RS. This article alludes to the connection, but doesn't make it explicit. --Macrakis (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem to me that we have reached consensus about including this entry. The entry was added, but it reads more like a WP:HOWTO than an encyclopedic article. I'm going to remove the recently added entry pending more discussion here. And we really need to do better than saying "rabbis don't eat lettuce, they eat leafy greens instead." Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no guidelines as to how big a consensus is needed to add something to the page, so I'm not sure removing it on those grounds makes sense. Furthermore, it seems your main issue with the point is how it was worded, which makes me wonder why you didn't adapt the wording to be more appropriate, and instead removed it entirely. Alex the weeb (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are most certainly guidelines for reaching consensus - see WP:CON, but this entry is fairly easy. The misconception is not mentioned in the topic article so it fails the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it is now mentioned in the article. The only remaining criteria are that there is a reliable source for debunking the misconception, and that it is a current common misconception. Which of these criteria do you not believe are met? Alex the weeb (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that various sources say different things. The cite at the Rabbit article says
Rabbits don't naturally eat root vegetables or fruit.
But this source[4] says
Rabbits really do like to eat carrots, but they don’t love them more than they love other vegetables.
This one[5] says:
So, if you’re wondering “Do wild rabbits eat carrots?” the answer is, “Yes, they will, but it’s not their favorite.”
This one[6] says:
A wild rabbit will very seldom eat carrots or any other root vegetable. Instead, they forage on surface grass and greens. However, they will occasionally find the top of a sweet carrot to eat...
And this one[7] says:
Bunnies will nibble on carrots, but they can't live on carrots alone.
Finally, this one [8]
Everybody knows that bunnies eat carrots, right? Except they don’t, really.
In the wild, rabbits aren’t in the habit of digging up root vegetables such as carrots, potatoes and beets.
So, it's a bit nuanced, and I'm not finding particularly good sourcing. Seems to me that the myth is that "Rabbits love carrots and their diet consists largely of carrots" while the truth is that carrots are "rarely" eaten by rabbits in the wild. But rabbits do eat carrots as part of their "natural" diet, at least some rabbits, but it's a very small part of their diet.
As long as we're careful with the wording I'd be in favor of adding this entry. It would be nice to have better sourcing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Finntastico2 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think that matters that much, it seems to work with this article. Finntastico2 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Can't prove a negative" misconception[edit]

There is nothing wrong with including "It is actually possible to prove a negative (such as "Unicorns do not exist"). Philosophers who study logic make no fundamental distinction between proving a claim and proving the negation of a claim"

"Fails inclusion criteria"

The inclusion criteria:

  • The topic to which the misconception is related has an article of its own.
Negation and Burden of proof (philosophy)
  • 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 source is a article published by Cambridge University Press, which is one of the most academically reliable publishers and clearly states how "you cannot prove a negative" is a misconception.
  • The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
The negation and burden of proof articles demonstrate how a negative can be proven.
  • The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
The source indicate that it is current.

'"seems to be a matter of dispute"'

It's not a matter of dispute, it's literally the consensus in the academic field of formal logic.[9][10][11][12][13] Crasias (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a mathematician, I am quite familiar with proofs of the existence or non-existence of various mathematical objects. So, agree completely that it is possible to prove a negative. Any statement that can be proved or disproved has a negation that will be proved or disproved as a result of proving or disproving the original statement. This is trivial. But that's not what people are talking about when they use the phrase "you can't prove a negative".
For instance, is it possible to prove that ghosts don't exist? Not with a level of certainty on par with the non-existence of a real number who's square is less than zero. There are many other examples such as Russell's_teapot, and I won't bother to list all of them. What we have here is a bit of folk wisdom that is basically correct in context but not applicable to mathematics or formal logic. That doesn't make it "wrong". This is the kind of thing that sparks arguments about the meaning of the word "proof", and we should avoid arguments about semantics on this page. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of items like:
The Earth isn't round, it is an oblate spheroid.
Anyway, I don't see anywhere that the topic articles mentions it as a misconception. Perhaps you can provide a pointer? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, is it possible to prove that ghosts don't exist?
That's the topic addressed by the source except it gives the example of unicorns instead of ghosts. According to the source, it is possible.
What we have here is a bit of folk wisdom that is basically correct in context but not applicable to mathematics or formal logic
That's not what these sources say,[14][15], they use formal logic to disprove "you can't prove a negative".[16] specifically links the "folk wisdom" you are talking about to the study of formal logic: "Philosophers, logicians, and linguists will point out that there is nothing special, in general, about positive and negative statements...the statement that it is difficult to prove a negative is not a good rule of thumb because we could always rewrite a positive statement as a negative one and vice versa with enough grammatical acrobatics".
A philosophy textbook states: "Logicians universally reject the notion that you can't prove a negative. There are many ways you can demonstrate a negative claim is true".
This is the kind of thing that sparks arguments about the meaning of the word "proof", and we should avoid arguments about semantics on this page
There should be no such arguments because of WP:TRUTH. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say, not what editors believe. Crasias (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question about the "misconception" being mentioned in one of the topic articles. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Negation shows that a truth table can be constructed to prove the negative form of a proposition P, and Burden of proof (philosophy) states that a proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument can be used to prove a negative claim. The articles address the misconception Crasias (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the actual text that supports your claim. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Negation:
"Classical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true when its operand is false, and a value of false when its operand is true. Thus if statement is true, then (pronounced "not P") would then be false; and conversely, if is true, then would be false."
Burden of proof (philosophy):
"A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim." Crasias (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly isn't possible to prove that unicorns, or anything else, don't exist. You can draw that conclusion (and form a legitimate belief) based on the lack of evidence, but you can never completely rule out the possibility of their existence. Obscurasky (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source from logicians that says that? Crasias (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say there isn't one that says that? (Sorry, I just can't help myself sometimes.) signed, Willondon (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere in your excerpts where these articles state anything about it being a "common misconception. Please wait for consensus to develop here on the Talk page before restoring the entry. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is saying two separate things. It first says that you can come up with negatives that can be proven (they give the example of double negatives, so you can prove that "Cows aren't nonexistent"), which I suppose would negate the statement if you interpreted "You can't prove a negative" as "You can't prove any negative" instead of "In general, you can't prove a negative". It then goes on to try to prove that Unicorns don't exist, but does so with flawed logic. Their first statement is completely false, as fossilization is a rare occurrence and only 1% of all species that have ever lived have been found as fossils, and their third statement makes a logical leap from "there is no evidence of" to "doesn't exist" that might work for a professor of philosophy (like the author of that paper) but wouldn't work for a logician nor does it mesh with the commonly understood definition of "prove". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 22:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. There are some negatives that can be proven and some that cannot e.g. the Earth is the only planet in the universe that has life. "You can't prove a negative" is about those sorts of claims.
Perhaps there's an entry to be found here, but it would need to be worded carefully.
BTW, I see that Crasias is attempting to get around our inclusion criteria by editing Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) - I reverted it thinking that it should be up to the editors at that page to accept or reject the edit. He's now engaging in edit warring and I'm not playing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Mammals being endothermic[edit]

Contrary to popular belief, not all Mammals are warm-blooded or endothermic. Some Mammals such as Sloths and Naked Mole Rats are cold-blooded or ectothermic, meaning their body temperature depends on external temperature. 37.47.187.207 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be solid sourcing of the claim that not all Mammals are warm-blooded or endothermic. The naked mole rat and sloths are poikilothermic or heterothermic not ectothermic. However, unlike most mammals they are not homeothermic, so the misconception would be "Not all mammals are homeothermic" which I do not think is all that common.


What I'm not seeing in any of these topic articles is that this is mentioned as a common misconception, so it seems to fail the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Poikilothermic" (also "Heterothermic") is technically a synonym of "Ectothermic", so these mammals also technically count as ectotherms. 37.47.187.207 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're going to have to take that argument up with the editors at the various articles in the Thermoregulation in Animals category. Good luck! Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Microsoft's paperclip-shaped Office Assistant[edit]

It seems to be readily accepted in popular culture that the anthropomorphic paperclip, the default Office Assistant included in Microsoft Office software in the late-90s and early-2000s, was named Clippy. The use of this name appears everywhere, from comedy sketches to factual articles about the infamous assistant.

However, it wasn't. The character's name was Clippit.

This might be invalidated as even Microsoft have begun to refer to the character as Clippy in recent years, but that was never the character's original name despite the seemingly widespread conception that it was. Valid entry or no? beeps (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to find some reliable source that states this is a misconception. Simply observing that most people called it Clippy when the official name was Clippit is not enough. See the inclusion criteria at the top of the page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic surgery[edit]

Do we have any evidence that there is a misconception that "plastic surgery" has something to do with plastics? I don't see it in plastic surgery article. --Macrakis (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has a page about misconceptions about plastic surgery here. [17] It doesn't mention this "misconception". That's not dispositive, but I haven't found anything else that supports the contention. I'd say yank the entry and if someone wants to restore it the ball will be in their court to provide support. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Macrakis (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ending a sentence with a preposition - proposed entry?[edit]

Today's article got me thinking that this might be a candidate for inclusion: [18]

The topic article's treatment is at Preposition_stranding#Controversy.

Perhaps this is a "controversy", but since "nearly all grammarians agree that it's fine to end sentences with prepositions, at least in some cases." it qualifies as a misconception. Thoughts? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how disagreements about good English style can qualify as "misconceptions". Are we going to add a section on other cases where prescriptive grammarians and popular usage disagree?: split infinitives, singular they, fewer versus less, inanimate whose, etc. etc.?
Are we also going to list other disputes about what is in good taste? Should we list "cheese must not be eaten with fish" as a misconception?[19][20] How about "red wine with meat; white wine with fish" -- wine specialists often call this a myth, but in the end, it's a matter of taste.
These aren't misconceptions one way or the other -- they are just disagreements. --Macrakis (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, As It Happens posted an article today to complement their radio broadcast.[1] From the article: "Context always matters," [Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster editor] said. "It's true that because this is one of those superstitions or myths or bugaboos that people have, that if it draws attention to your writing in a way that distracts from your message, then maybe you would avoid it." It's treated as a misconception. I suspect there are still a large number of people that believe it's "incorrect English". The NPR article cited above describes it as a "stubborn taboo", and states "Many were adamant that a concluding preposition is lazy, or just sounded plain weird." signed, Willondon (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a matter of taste of style I would agree. But my understanding is that many people think this is a hard and fast rule of grammar, not just a matter of taste or style. Agree that there are other things that are not rules of grammar that many people think are rules, eg split infinitives, but this one seems to be the most pervasive.
Our entry on Irregardless mentions a few other words that are often claimed to not be words, but irregardless is the poster child for that genre so it is given more prominence with other examples provided later. Perhaps that would be a good model for this entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying misconception for both irregardless and preposition stranding is that languages are defined by experts, whether dictionaries or (prescriptive) grammarians. It is the very notion of "incorrect English" that is the problem. --Macrakis (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that there is no such thing as incorrect English grammar is an overstatement. (Or perhaps I should say: No such that idea is as the grammar English incorrect overstatement is an.) See the articles on Standard English and English grammar for details.
That said, I agree that the underlying misconception is that there is some official set of rules and I think we cover that in the irregardless entry. The alleged prohibition on ending a sentence with a preposition is similar to the irregardless is not a word claim, although irregardless is less accepted in formal written English than preposition stranding.
Seems to me that if we place this proposed entry immediately after the irregardless entry your concerns about the underlying misconception would be addressed. I don't know that we need to list other examples such as infinitive splitting but a select few might be in order. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed entry:

It is permissible to end a sentence with a preposition.[2] This supposed rule originated in the 1500s in an attempt to imitate Latin, which has more strict grammar than English, but modern linguists agree that it is a natural and organic part of the language.[3] Similarly, modern style and usage manuals allow split infinitives.[4]

Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would strike the "which has more strict grammar than English" part -- Latin is "stricter" in some ways, but much looser in others (word order).
has a of English course grammar, but I was referring to the prescriptive grammarians' notion of "incorrect English". --Macrakis (talk)
Ok. Done. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr swordfish How about:

Prepositions are permissible to end a sentence with.[5] This supposed rule originated in the 1500s in an attempt to imitate Latin, which has more strict grammar than English, but modern linguists agree that it is a natural and organic part of the language.[6] Similarly, modern style and usage manuals do not require writers to always avoid split infinitives.[7]

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's clever to phrase this with a final preposition, that isn't really idiomatic. And both this and the previous (29 Feb) wording refer to a "supposed rule" which is never stated. How about:
It is permissible to end a sentence with a preposition. Starting in the 1600s [see source article], some grammarians deemed it bad usage because it did not follow Latin grammar, but ...
--Macrakis (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From [21]:
Although many people were taught to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition, nearly all modern style guides say it's not a rule, and if your sentence sounds more natural with a preposition at the end, it's fine to leave it that way.
So I think we are on solid ground calling it a supposed rule. I could add this as a cite if requested. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Back to irregardless[edit]

I'm not entirely happy with the wording of irregardless. It reads:

Irregardless is a word. Nonstandard, slang, or colloquial terms used by English speakers are sometimes alleged not to be real words, despite appearing in numerous dictionaries. All words in English became accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus, there are many vernacular words currently not accepted as part of the standard language, or regarded as inappropriate in formal speech or writing, but the idea that they are not words is a misconception. Other examples of words that are sometimes alleged not to be words include burglarize, licit, and funnest which appear in numerous dictionaries as English words.

(my emphasis) This wording endorses the notion that being in a dictionary is what defines something as a word. Here's a proposed alternate wording:

Irregardless is a word. Nonstandard, slang, or colloquial terms used by English speakers are sometimes alleged not to be real words. Words in English become accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus, there are many vernacular words currently not accepted as part of the standard language, or regarded as inappropriate in formal speech or writing, but the idea that they are not words is a misconception. Other examples such words include burglarize, licit, and funnest. Dictionaries do not determine whether a word is "real"; they only document words after they have become widely used.

Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to say anything about dictionaries? The proposed entry looks fine without the last sentence Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the misconception is that only words found in dictionaries are "real". --Macrakis (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously a misconception, but is it a common misconception? And do we have sources that say that? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to find sources for the commonness of the misconception:
  • Generally, there is a common myth that dictionaries are the ultimate authority of language. In arguments, perhaps you have heard people say things like “The dictionary defines X as…” or “That’s not a word because it’s not in the dictionary.” [22]
  • I'm a lexicographer. I make dictionaries. And my job as a lexicographer is to try to put all the words possible into the dictionary. My job is not to decide what a word is; that is your job.... Everybody who speaks English decides together what's a word and what's not a word. [23]
But our current dictionary article (which has many problems...) simply says that some dictionaries are prescriptive and some descriptive. --Macrakis (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Perhaps this would qualify as an entry.
What gives me pause about your proposal is that all the examples - irregardless, burglarize, licit, and funnest - are in the merriam-webster online dictionary so it's a weird segue. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. Maybe it's a separate entry:
Dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe it, although they may label some uses as nonstandard.[24] There are also specialized usage dictionaries which do give advice on usage.[25]
Of course, we'll need to discuss this in the dictionary article. --Macrakis (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casual sex[edit]

[26] Contrary to stereotype, women who engage in casual sex don't have lower self-esteem. Benjamin (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed entry: mantis shrimp can see more colors than humans[edit]

A common myth on the Internet is that mantis shrimp can see more colors than humans can, even "unknown/unknowable" colors, because their eyes have more types of color receptors. Potentially started by this Radiolab episode [27] and later spread by a comic by The Oatmeal inspired by it [28], although I'm not sure. Article directly referencing the myth and its debunking from Nature: [29]

While mantis shrimp eyes do contain 12 unique photoreceptors for detecting color, some of which are sensitive to wavelengths outside the human visible spectrum, they do not compare signals from multiple receptors to perceive colors "between" each receptor's sensitive range, the way humans and other dichromats/trichromats do. Instead, they can only detect the 12 specific colors those receptors are tuned to, and use scanning eye movements to incrementally trigger those receptors to identify an object's position and color. [30] LooseElectronStudios (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like a misconception so much as an exaggeration for the sake of website clicks.
Mantis shrimp can detect light with wavelengths between 300 and 720nm, compared to humans who can see wavelengths between 380 and 750nm. So, they clearly can see colors we can't. OTOH, we can see longer wavelengths that they can't. Does this really count as a misconception?
Mantis shrimp have 16 color receptors as opposed to our three which seems to be the main source for the claim that they can see more colors; this does not imply on it's own that they can see more colors, but it sounds cool so people hype it on the internet. In addition, some species can detect circularly polarized light which is an unusual ability. Add it all up and their compound eyes, 16 receptors, and limited brain power means that they see very differently than humans.
Anyway, I don't see anything in the topic article that mentions this alleged misconception, so it would fail our inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]