PDA

View Full Version : What is the most widely held false belief you know?


Starwatcher162536
05-12-2009, 07:46 PM
What is the most widely held false belief you know?

My two nominations for most widely held falsehood are:

A)Nothing ever travels faster then light, in any circumstance

B)Moore's law is still true.


P.S.
Lets stay away form various religious claims.

JonIrenicus
05-12-2009, 08:06 PM
What is the most widely held false belief you know?

My two nominations for most widely held falsehood are:

A)Nothing ever travels faster then light, in any circumstance

B)Moore's law is still true.


P.S.
Lets stay away form various religious claims.



A) ... what travels faster than light? space? I guess that can, supposedly it did after the big bang, tachyons? no proof they even exist yet..

in a non vacuum medium? Well sure, light could be slowed down and the equivalent of the sound barrier could be breached ala cherenkov radiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

but in a vacuum, I am pretty sure light is faster than all massive objects. Ok so your statement holds with that last bit.



For mine its something I have mentioned before. What is unnatural/man made is always worse than something natural.

pampl
05-12-2009, 08:35 PM
"You can't prove a negative" and "opinions can't be wrong"

Also the thing about microwaves + plastics = cancer

TwinSwords
05-12-2009, 09:15 PM
What is the most widely held false belief you know?

My group is special.

claymisher
05-12-2009, 09:28 PM
My group is special.

I can top that: I am special.

Thanks, dad!
05-12-2009, 09:35 PM
Yeah, what's faster than light ?

I don't follow tech stuff. Moores law is wrong now?

Starwatcher162536
05-12-2009, 09:36 PM
speaking of cancer, I forgot to mention the one about transformers giving you cancer, not sure how many actually believe in that one though.

Starwatcher162536
05-12-2009, 09:38 PM
Yeah, what's faster than light ?

I don't follow tech stuff. Moores law is wrong now?

Jon had it right, I was talking about Cherenkov radiation.

Clock speed maxed out at around 5 Ghz in the first few years of the 21st century, mainly because of cooling problems. Its probably the reason everything started go dual core with clustered software.

Edit:
Apparently I spoke to soon, Moore's law is transistor count vs. time, not any sort of processing speed.

JonIrenicus
05-12-2009, 11:40 PM
I can top that: I am special.

Actually, there is a special case where the statement "I am special" holds up.

When uttered by one humble, Jon Irenicus.

A statement I think all can agree upon, so long as they are allowed to choose their own meaning for the word "special."

TwinSwords
05-13-2009, 12:43 AM
I can top that: I am special.

Yeah, exactly.

Lyle
05-13-2009, 10:21 AM
JFK calling Berliners jelly donuts.... no, I don't know actually.

nikkibong
05-13-2009, 10:46 AM
The Japanese invented sushi.

bjkeefe
05-13-2009, 11:30 AM
What is the most widely held false belief you know?

Here in the US, at least: God created humans exactly as we see them today, and did so recently.

Maybe an even more widely-held misconception in this country, at least for the moment, is: I know what "cap and trade" means (http://wonkette.com/408471/majority-of-americans-think-cap-and-trade-is-about-hamburgers).

bjkeefe
05-13-2009, 12:31 PM
Or perhaps: The media has a liberal bias. (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200905120014)

JonIrenicus
05-13-2009, 04:05 PM
Or perhaps: The media has a liberal bias. (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200905120014)

Right, because syndicated columnist number is the true metric of how liberal or conservative media is...

Not what is covered in news sections or on network news.

Take a look at the focus of this report:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/US/story?id=7575258&page=1

So much mention of his stress levels and the fact that going to that wretched Iraq most likely contributed to his mental state that led to his murdering 5 people...

Liberal tripe, how about talking about his individual character that failed and why he thought it OK to take the lives of innocent people? How about THAT being a focus of that NEWS story.


This is common, even news stories are littered with bias in what they cover and focus on.


Anyway, ever consider that conservative columnists are simply more popular and or compelling than a typical liberal columnist?

You know, how more conservative leaning radio hosts tend to get MUCH higher ratings than their liberal counterparts?


btw, Today I think media as a whole is much more even, NOT because newspapers are less liberally inclined, but because of the rise of alternative media sources.

claymisher
05-13-2009, 04:24 PM
It's so true! You never hear stories anymore about how segregation is absolutely vital to the defense of the republic, about how women shouldn't work, about exciting developments in shock treatment for homosexuals, about the mental deficiencies of the inferior races, etc. And good thing too. "Liberal bias" is just progress in action.

bjkeefe
05-13-2009, 04:37 PM
Shorter JonIrenicus (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=113511#post113511):

Your comprehensive study is a poor measure. Here, let me offer one (1) anecdote which completely rebuts it.

JonIrenicus
05-13-2009, 08:34 PM
Shorter JonIrenicus (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=113511#post113511):

That comprehensive study, on its face, too all but the thickest creatures, is but a sliver of the total news stream.


What percentage of the media are syndicated columnists? 100%? If that was the case then your case would be stronger, as it stands, it tells us nothing about the media landscape as a whole in newspapers or television.

bjkeefe
05-13-2009, 10:29 PM
That comprehensive study, on its face, too all but the thickest creatures, is but a sliver of the total news stream.


What percentage of the media are syndicated columnists? 100%? If that was the case then your case would be stronger, as it stands, it tells us nothing about the media landscape as a whole in newspapers or television.

I'm not even going to discuss this, Jon. The fact that you flipped out about it tends to show the validity of my original answer to the original question, though, I'll say that much.

[Added] Having said the above, I am going to offer some more data (http://mediamatters.org/reports/200602140002) (granted: slightly dated) from a different slice of the media spectrum, mostly because I'll be able to remember where I put this link.

uncle ebeneezer
05-14-2009, 11:25 PM
And many more examples here...with footnotes, even:

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

JonIrenicus
05-15-2009, 03:04 AM
And many more examples here...with footnotes, even:

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

Do you think there is liberal bias in any vein of the media?

It depends on how you define liberal. If supporting Clintons trade policy is considered a conservative stance, then yes, he has a point, but the problem is that many of you are not simply liberal, but are leftists.

So yes, from your reference point many media sources are squishy and even lean conservative. Does this make it so in an objective sense? No, just from your lefty vantage point.

As I said, and will say again since the point seems to have escaped you all. I'll even repeat it slowly.


Today, with the advent of alternative media sources, like talk radio and a single conservative network (1 of 3 btw, can you all count?), media is more balanced than it ever has been taken as a whole.

But you have to be a special kind of fool to make the case that network news leans conservative, or that the number of reporters lean conservative in the profession.

cherry picking data to serve your point, like a hack, like a dishonest cretin, does not make the argument any more sound.


EVEN IF I gave you and others the point that there were say more conservative columnists than liberal columnists, it is nothing but a sliver of total news coverage. And this is your knockdown case for conservative prevalence? The argument is embarrassing in it's logic.

How many news stories attacked McCain and Palin? How many attacked Biden? I think even liberals agreed he got a free pass.

On talk radio it is reversed, and to be fair, talk radio is not a collection of static stories, it is a 2-3-4 hour verbal editorial, powerful, perhaps more potent per time spent than the written word for many people.

So I give you that, I have the capacity to concede bias in X veins of the media, you, like a hack, like an insecure soul cannot give an inch, you deny bias in whatever sliver of data and opinions you can find.

It is what makes the likes of a Peter Beinart a better man than those that employ the type of give no inch thinking. He is not a Rachael Maddow, he is not insecure with his beliefs and its weaknesses and low points, he still believes he has the high ground most of the time, but has the capacity to admit when another does over himself or his side.

Answer this question, does any facet of the media have a liberal bias?

AemJeff
05-15-2009, 05:45 AM
Answer this question, does any facet of the media have a liberal bias?

Of course that's true. It's so obvious that it's meaningless. Does any facet of the media have some other bias besides "liberal?" Well..., yup, I think so. The harping on "liberal bias" is a result of a long-term, concerted effort by people on the right, like Brent Bozell, Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz, to repeat the phrase "liberal bias" often enough that it becomes a common part of the lexicon. The fact that people like you parrot this notion back almost unchanged is testament to the success of that enterprise.

TwinSwords
05-15-2009, 07:04 AM
Of course that's true. It's so obvious that it's meaningless. Does any facet of the media have some other bias besides "liberal?" Well..., yup, I think so. The harping on "liberal bias" is a result of a long-term, concerted effort by people on the right, like Brent Bozell, Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz, to repeat the phrase "liberal bias" often enough that it becomes a common part of the lexicon. The fact that people like you parrot this notion back almost unchanged is testament to the success of that enterprise.

Well put.

JonIrenicus
05-15-2009, 11:53 AM
Of course that's true. It's so obvious that it's meaningless. Does any facet of the media have some other bias besides "liberal?" Well..., yup, I think so. The harping on "liberal bias" is a result of a long-term, concerted effort by people on the right, like Brent Bozell, Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz, to repeat the phrase "liberal bias" often enough that it becomes a common part of the lexicon. The fact that people like you parrot this notion back almost unchanged is testament to the success of that enterprise.

If you accept it, why let the assertion that that there is conservative bias slide?

My only reason for bringing any of this up was to give pushback against the notion that liberal media was a myth, that is all.

Yes, the point is obvious, but for some here, obvious still needs to be explained.

AemJeff
05-15-2009, 12:03 PM
If you accept it, why let the assertion that that there is conservative bias slide?

My only reason for bringing any of this up was to give pushback against the notion that liberal media was a myth, that is all.

Yes, the point is obvious, but for some here, obvious still needs to be explained.

I don't think you're quite seeing the point, Jon. The question, as you phrased it:

does any facet of the media have a liberal bias

is damn near a tautology. The affirmative answer doesn't tell us anything new, because the "media" is segmented and some of those "facets" are explicitly biased. That's not surprising, and it doesn't illuminate the broader question about systemic bias.

JonIrenicus
05-15-2009, 02:25 PM
I don't think you're quite seeing the point, Jon. The question, as you phrased it:


is damn near a tautology. The affirmative answer doesn't tell us anything new, because the "media" is segmented and some of those "facets" are explicitly biased. That's not surprising, and it doesn't illuminate the broader question about systemic bias.

Baby steps.

He used a specific item and extrapolated from that that a "systemic" liberal bias was a false belief. I called him on it. Your critique does nothing to negate my main critique of his statement.

I start with a small bit just to test whether he can acknowledge any bias in the liberal direction at all. That does not prove systemic bias by itself, but I need to know if that can at least be conceded or I am just talking to a brick wall.

AemJeff
05-15-2009, 02:57 PM
Baby steps.

He used a specific item and extrapolated from that that a "systemic" liberal bias was a false belief. I called him on it. Your critique does nothing to negate my main critique of his statement.

I start with a small bit just to test whether he can acknowledge any bias in the liberal direction at all. That does not prove systemic bias by itself, but I need to know if that can at least be conceded or I am just talking to a brick wall.

It's not a baby step when the information content is zero. It's simply null.

JonIrenicus
05-15-2009, 03:02 PM
It's not a baby step when the information content is zero. It's simply null.

It's a test, and what you are doing is dodging the main point. Continue to ignore it, it simply tells me you cannot concede anything, or call out anything against a person you sympathize with.

graz
05-15-2009, 03:08 PM
It's a test

And one for you...too (http://www.iqtest2009.com/usiqtest.html)