How many of these do you believe?

[Gnosital]

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/1...ctors-believe/

I live to debunk myths. It's the natural skeptic in me. Or maybe it's due to a character flaw. Regardless, I think atheists should be even more rigorous in their pursuit of truth, so EVERYBODY needs to read this article.

TO be honest, I actually did buy into the tryptophan myth although when I mentioned it in my lectures on neurotransmitter functions, I always said that standard post-prandial depression was equally responsible!

You can bet I won't make the same mistake again!

[Rhinoqulous]

Great find Gnosy! I am guilty of believing some of them as well.

1- 8 glasses of water a day. Never thought this was a "fact", but more of a general rule to "keep hydrated".
2- 10% of our brains. I've actually found this to be true for people who spread this myth around.
3- Hair and Fingernail growth after death. Another one I've pointed out to people, usually the same ones who use 10% of their brains.
4- Shaving makes hair grow faster. I've heard this, always thought it sounded stupid, and now I'm justified in thinking it is stupid.
5- Reading in dim light. If this were true I'd be blind by now.
6- Turkey makes you sleepy. Damnit, I believed this one.
7- Cellphones in hospitals. Believed this one too. Not really a "medical" myth, but technological.

[ghoulslime]

I didn't see anything on here about hairy palms or going blind. It isn't true, is it?

[Gnosital]

ghoulslime wrote

I didn't see anything on here about hairy palms or going blind. It isn't true, is it?

I refer you to the jack off thread for empirical evidence regarding this question.

[ghoulslime]

Gnosital wrote

I refer you to the jack off thread for empirical evidence regarding this question.

Excellent resource! That thing is getting close to having enough material to be published as a textbook.

1. People should drink at least eight glasses of water a day.
I did believe it before, until reading this article a few weeks ago. I didn't know nutritionists were liars.
2. We use only 10 percent of our brains.
I kinda believed it before, but I haven't for a while now.
3. Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death.
What bunch of crap
4. Shaving hair causes it to grow back faster, darker or coarser.
I don't know what's more illogical, this or the existence of deities. Sadly, my whole family believes this, no matter how much I tell them it isn't true.
5. Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight.
I haven't really looked into it, but recently discovered it was bullshit. Only person who told me this was my dad, I've been skeptical though since I haven't noticed anything myself.
6. Eating turkey makes people especially drowsy.
I've never heard this, it sounds utterly stupid.
7. Cellphones create considerable electromagnetic interference in hospitals.
Sounds plausible enough for me to not consider it bullshit. Didn't really look into it all that much.

[Gnosital]

I love making the students think their way through the 10% myth. After I've already covered basic neural functioning in class, including plasticity and the fact that neurons tend to die off if they aren't active, I ask them if they've ever heard of the myth, and most of them believe it.

Then I ask them if they've ever known anyone who had a brain injury or even a minor stroke, and if so did that person exhibit any noticeable changes in behavior. Then I ask them why, if 90% of the brain is useless, even minor damage to the brain could cause such a change.

Plus, if 90% of the brain isn't used, why don't we all have mostly empty heads?


Of course, that assumes there are no raging theists in the class... and of course there always are.

[Eva]

gs, it's a miracle that you can type. and that you are not a sponsor of gillette.

praise jeebus!

[ghoulslime]

Eva wrote

gs, it's a miracle that you can type. and that you are not a sponsor of gillette.

praise jeebus!

Oddly I know a lot of women with unexplainable hairy palms. If they can't see what they are pulling on, then you can pretty much make them believe anything.

[nkb]

I have to admit that I believed 7 (cellphone interference), but that is based on the interference that I have experienced myself every day (when my cell phone rings, there is heavy buzzing on my PC speakers at home and my headset at work), in addition to hospital rules.

I always had my doubts on 6, because I never passed out after eating a turkey sandwich, only after stuffing my face at Thanksgiving, then sitting on the couch to watch a football game.

Cell phone interference is an issue, but I don't know about hospitals. There is more than anecdotal evidence for cell phones (and laptops and some calculators) interfering with the navigation systems of commercial aircraft. Cell phones operate in the same region of the electromagnetic spectrum as GPS. There is an ongoing study by the FCC and the FAA regarding the problem of people turning on their cell phones prematurely before/slightly after landing. They are placing devices to monitor this to determine the extent of the threat. Given that one act of selfishness can place a lot of people in harm's way on an airport runway, the FAA would rather err to the side of caution. Wouldn't you? I know I can wait five more minutes to turn on my blinkin' cell phone.

[ghoulslime]

Rat Bastard wrote

Cell phone interference is an issue, but I don't know about hospitals. There is more than anecdotal evidence for cell phones (and laptops and some calculators) interfering with the navigation systems of commercial aircraft. Cell phones operate in the same region of the electromagnetic spectrum as GPS. There is an ongoing study by the FCC and the FAA regarding the problem of people turning on their cell phones prematurely before/slightly after landing. They are placing devices to monitor this to determine the extent of the threat. Given that one act of selfishness can place a lot of people in harm's way on an airport runway, the FAA would rather err to the side of caution. Wouldn't you? I know I can wait five more minutes to turn on my blinkin' cell phone.

Good catch, Rat! I'm backing your play on this one.

I just went back to the genius blog. It looks like someone is not being very honest. Notice our enlightened teacher uses quantifiers such as "considerable" and "used in a normal way".

Sorry to piss on the myth buster parade, but just about any electronic device which broadcasts, has the potential to interfere with other electronic devices. Which of these instances is "considerable" or "used in a normal way" is another discussion. Sensitive electronic devices would not have RF/microwave shields on them if interference were not a concern by the makers of these devices.

[Gnosital]

ghoulslime wrote

Sorry to piss on the myth buster parade, but just about any electronic device which broadcasts, has the potential to interfere with other electronic devices. Which of these instances is "considerable" or "used in a normal way" is another discussion. Sensitive electronic devices would not have RF/microwave shields on them if interference were not a concern by the makers of these devices.

I believe the post refers to interference with HOSPITAL devices, not to a concentrated mass of peoples on an airplane turning on their cellophones all at once on a runway causing interference with other wireless communication devices. I believe the claim that cellphone use does not interfere with the proper functioning of HOSPITAL equipment was based on empirical investigation, and the issue of cellphone use on airplanes was not mentioned. It appears (based on Rattie's post) that the investigations in that arena are ongoing.

It's hardly "raining on a myth buster parade" if you are presenting a valid argument based on empirical support that refines or corrects a misinterpretation.

While there wasn't an actual misrepresentation inherent in the points made in the article, your distinction and clarification of a related issue is a perfectly skeptical thing to do.

Sort of like what I was trying to do in the prostitution thread.

What a coincidence!

Gnosital wrote

I believe the post refers to interference with HOSPITAL devices, not to a concentrated mass of peoples on an airplane turning on their cellophones all at once on a runway causing interference with other wireless communication devices.

The evidence for cell phone interference in aircraft is circumstantial and debatable. The FAA won't allow it until the airlines perform rigorous tests and the airlines see no return on investment as long as no one else can.

Even if the FAA backs down, the FCC will still have a problem. When a cell phone is on the ground it has only one "closest tower" but in the air it could have several equally proximal towers. A few aircraft full of passengers with phones switched on could seriously mess up the mobile phone system.

I'm happy since I don't really feel the need to talk to anyone on the plane and people talking right beside you can get irritating. The girl next to me on the train on thursday spent half the trip jabbering on her cellphone in spanish.

To make up for it she spent the rest of the trip talking to me in a spanish accent, so I wasn't too upset.

[ghoulslime]

Gnosital wrote

I believe the post refers to interference with HOSPITAL devices, not to a concentrated mass of peoples on an airplane turning on their cellophones all at once on a runway causing interference with other wireless communication devices. I believe the claim that cellphone use does not interfere with the proper functioning of HOSPITAL equipment was based on empirical investigation, and the issue of cellphone use on airplanes was not mentioned. It appears (based on Rattie's post) that the investigations in that arena are ongoing.

It's hardly "raining on a myth buster parade" if you are presenting a valid argument based on empirical support that refines or corrects a misinterpretation.

While there wasn't an actual misrepresentation inherent in the points made in the article, your distinction and clarification of a related issue is a perfectly skeptical thing to do.

Sort of like what I was trying to do in the prostitution thread.

What a coincidence!

Dude! I wasn't trying to beat you up. I was only pointing out a weak point in the argument. If you pound your fist on the table and make a claim, you'd better have a solid claim. The claim of the page to which you directed us stated that cellphones interfering with medical equiptment is a myth. That's a claim. I point out that any electronic device which broadcasts has the potential to interfere with other electronic devices.

Sensitive electronic devices would not have RF/microwave shields on them if interference were not a concern by the makers of these devices. Sensitive medical devices DO have RF shields on them to protect against interference. Will calling your aunt Polly while standing in the wiating room shut down the EKG machine in the emergency room? It's highly unlikely. Will heavy microwave or X-ray transmissions disrupt the functionality of sensitive medical devices? You can bet your pacemaker they will!