Talk:List of common misconceptions

Plastic surgery

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)

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has a page about misconceptions about plastic surgery here. [1] 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)

Done. --Macrakis (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ending a sentence with a preposition - proposed entry?

Today's article got me thinking that this might be a candidate for inclusion: [2]

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)

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?[3][4] 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)

As it happens, As It Happens posted an article today to complement their radio broadcast. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed entry:

It is permissible to end a sentence with a preposition. 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. Similarly, modern style and usage manuals allow split infinitives.

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

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)

@Mr swordfish How about:

Prepositions are permissible to end a sentence with. 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. Similarly, modern style and usage manuals do not require writers to always avoid split infinitives.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

From [5]:

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)

References

Back to irregardless

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)

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)

Part of the misconception is that only words found in dictionaries are "real". --Macrakis (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.” [6]
• 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. [7]

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)

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)

True. Maybe it's a separate entry:

Dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe it, although they may label some uses as nonstandard.[8] There are also specialized usage dictionaries which do give advice on usage.[9]

Of course, we'll need to discuss this in the dictionary article. --Macrakis (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Casual sex

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

Proposed entry: mantis shrimp can see more colors than humans

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 [11] and later spread by a comic by The Oatmeal inspired by it [12], although I'm not sure. Article directly referencing the myth and its debunking from Nature: [13]

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. [14] LooseElectronStudios (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Proposed entry: Wikipedia is not a reliable source

See title. Some sources:[15],[16], [17], [18], and [19] 68.188.156.135 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You have not shown that there is a misconception that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Two of the sources are actually about bias rather than reliability, two explicitly say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source (one goes so far as to state ' “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” is a phrase we have all heard at least once in our lives.', the opposite of evidence of the misconception. The fifth source is about an attempt to identify who added hoax material in a biography in 2005 Meters (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

“Radiation is not always dangerous”

This item has been tweaked since January but still does not belong in this article.  It remains advocacy for one side of an undecided scientific question.  

The claim that “radiation is not always dangerous” directly contradicts the linear no-threshold (LNT) model affirmed by most major official bodies with relevant expertise (see Wikipedia’s Radiation Hormesis article).  According to LNT, some degree of danger -- however slight -- does exist down to zero dose. The LNT model is disputed, but that’s the point -- there’s a scientific dispute.  That alone should get this item cut from Common Misconceptions.

Given the above, it doesn’t matter what text follows the opening statement; the item can't be rescued by adjusting the text. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that the text is riddled with question-begging, irrelevance, and weaseling:

•  “Radiation is ubiquitous on Earth's surface, and humans are adapted to survive at normal Earth radiation levels.”  Irrelevant, because something that is ubiquitous, and which humans are adapted to survive, may still be dangerous; air pollution is ubiquitous, survivable, and dangerous. Gravity and viruses are ubiquitous, survivable, and dangerous. Whether low-level ionizing radiation is ubiquitous, survivable, and dangerous is an unsettled empirical question. The best-available official answer (e.g., BEIR VII) is, so far, “Yes” -- the LNT model.

•  “Everything is safely non-toxic at sufficiently low doses, even . . . high-energy forms of radiation.”  Begs the question. Whether high-energy forms of radiation  are “safely non-toxic at sufficiently low doses” is precisely what is at stake in the unsettled debate between LNT and hormesis.

• "everything becomes toxic at sufficiently high doses, even water and oxygen" -- True but irrelevant to whether radiation (or anything else) becomes nontoxic at sufficiently low doses.

•  “Indeed, the relationship between dose and toxicity is often non-linear, and many substances that are toxic at high doses have neutral or positive health effects, or are biologically essential, at moderate or low doses.”  True but misleading: that “many substances” have nonlinear effects does not tell us whether ionizing radiation has nonlinear effects, or effects nonlinear enough, and in such a way, as to make it harmless at sufficiently low doses. That is precisely what is at stake in the unresolved LNT/hormesis debate.

•  “There is some evidence to suggest that this is true for ionizing radiation; normal levels of ionizing radiation may serve to stimulate and regulate the activity of DNA repair mechanisms.”  Weasel wording. Yes, there is “some evidence to suggest” that hormesis "may" be real in humans, but there is also evidence to suggest that it may not be, and questions about interpretation of the evidence on both sides, which is why this remains an unresolved scientific question.

The fact that “there is some evidence to suggest” that a commonly held belief "may" be false does not suffice to make the belief a “common misconception.”

The item should be deleted in toto. Lgilman909 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you mean by "radiation". Light is radiation, and without it we wouldn't be able to see. Radio waves are radiation and despite the claims of the conspiracy minded there's no evidence that all those radio stations and cell phones are emitting dangerous levels of radiation.

That said, the entry doesn't seem to convey the fact that there are lots of ordinary, everyday encounters with radiation or to distinguish between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. So, I think the entry is problematic and I'm not even sure what the common misconception is. Does anybody really think light is dangerous?

I'm ok with removing it pending a better presentation, or just removing it without trying to salvage it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the affirmative reply, Mr. Swordfish. We're in agreement, so the following remarks are just for amplification: The item's use of "radiation" is indeed pop or soft. This could be fixed by saying "ionizing radiation" from the get-go, but the item as a whole would still be inappropriate for Common Misconceptions. It addresses what its author considers the popular misconception "All [ionizing] radiation is dangerous," but this is not a popular misconception; in the technical form of the linear no-threshold model, it's the official (albeit disputed) position of most major scientific bodies with relevant ambits (e.g., the US National Academies, which issues the BEIR reports, or the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). Lgilman909 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So, we seem to have two "votes" for removing the entry. Anybody want to stick up for it? Otherwise lets put it on ice until a better version emerges. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, remove it. Meters (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. Less a misconception than people imparting negative attributes to a vague use of the word, like "processed foods are unhealthy because they have chemicals in them." _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We could just as well have an entry for "Chemicals are not always dangerous" if we apply the same criteria as in the radiation entry. Or "Falling is not always dangerous" or a wide range of others. I'll remove the entry and if someone wants to craft a better version I'll be happy to consider it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: I feel like people generally tend to overestimate the risk posed by ionizing radiation exposure even in the context of LNT, but I recognize that might not be enough for it to meet the inclusion requirements of this article. Exposing to falling seems an imperfect analogy though; radiation stands out as a physical phenomenon with an exceptionally high number of orders of magnitude between "detectable" and "dangerous". VQuakr (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

ETA: I don't oppose the recent removal given how loosely-worded and poorly-sourced that version is. VQuakr (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)