50 Science Misconceptions - mental_floss on YouTube (Ep.18)

[@MentalFloss]

Love fun facts? Of course you do, why else would you be here? Join us for our LIVE trivia show this Friday to test your fun fact expertise: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n2iQn52Qq7and80&amp=&feature=youtu.be

[@ILikeFreedomYo]

How about the misconception that doctors and scientists have everything thing figured out. That should be #1.

[@MissClockwork]

"Brontosaurus never existed" -A Year Or So Later- "Brontosaurus existed"

[@JorgeAguilera]

Hank, you guys rule KZbin.

[@TheBayAreaRealEstateAgent]

I'm doing a research of misconceptions and look who I find. El unico y guapo Jorge Aguilera. Saludos papi.

[@isabellaangeline2175]

@@TheBayAreaRealEstateAgent I love stumbling upon sweet and wholesome posts on KZbin over the usual piles of vitriol and anger for anger’s sake. Stay awesome, Luis.

[@MrBanzoid]

Everyone knows that the dark side of the moon is an album by Pink Floyd.

[@edwardmcmanus]

There is no 'dark side.' It's all dark...

[@eirdofkoda]

Not anymore they don't :/

[@pranamd1]

2:06 - I don't know Russian, but I do know some of the Cyrillic alphabet, so I was very confused about why the cosmonaut's speech bubble said "pervyy". Turns out, the Russian word for "first" is "pervyy". I find this amusing.

[@Danokh]

It's not pronounced like that, but yeah

[@Liggliluff]

Technically it says "первый", and if you follow one Romanisation (popular in Russia?) you get "pervyj". It's pronounced [ˈpʲervɨj].

[@ljmoulton10]

I think this would have been more enjoyable if some of the facts were explained further and to keep the video from being too long, split the video into two (or more) parts.

[@sinsofmemphisto7809]

Why? Don't you get google in your town?

[@SlyPearTree]

Watch SciShow.

[@andriyshapovalov8886]

@@sinsofmemphisto7809 Ask Google.

[@guitarz76]

Lazy? We're all lazy. That's why were wasting our time watching KZbin videos.

[@christinemacchia8514]

Yes exactly

[@akshayrathore2882]

"The light from stars is refracted as they passes through atmosphere distorting the image that reach our eyes" eh well thats what is called twinkling.

[@dunruden9720]

That's what the poster said, only he said it better than you did.

[@melanphilia]

,, get distorted, get distorted, get distorted stars light Passing through the atmosphere '' 🎧🎶🎼🎼🎹

[@elizabethschreiner5151]

But it is not the star! Listen carefully i know he talks fast. He said "stars do not twinkle" the light reflected from the star twinkles as it passes through the atmosphere. The light hitting the surface and being reflected is not changing intensity, therefore, a star does not twinkle, light is not changed, your perception is distorted by the atmosphere.

[@StudioOfBugs]

and the beautiful thing is... that in some years, we'll be correcting this video, pointing out what is really true

[@spencerlenahan2879]

no

[@momergil]

no? The guy JAdHum already corrected one of the items ^^

[@spencerlenahan2879]

He did mention they do not die, if you read what he said. And the comment says years to come, not something the creator made a mistake on.

[@sharroon7574]

Progress

[@rexmundi3108]

2020 brontosaurus is real.

[@Andyjpro]

My problem with this video is that some of these aren't misconceptions, just pedantic nitpicking. The only ones I didn't know where about the first people in space, but that's not technically science that's historical trivia. And whoever is saying that angle and distance are not related, well you're wrong. If you think of an right triangle with some angle theta, and you change that angle theta, you alter the proportions of the two legs to keep the hypotenuse the same.

[@cyqry]

A lot of these are misconceptions within society, just not necessarily among the /smart/ people in society. I know plenty of people who would mistake at least 20 of these without even trying.

[@Andyjpro]

Yes I know that, but the difference between people knowing that the moon is responsible for tides and the moon being _mostly_ responsible for the tides with some help from the sun is pretty negligible. I'd say it's like rounding, say the moon were arbitrarily 85% responsible for tides, with the sun being 14% and 1% being other astral bodies (remember these are arbitrary numbers). If someone asked: "what's responsible for the tides?" the short, dirty answer would be the moon. I could go on and on about being pedantic

[@cyqry]

Andy Prokopyk I suppose that is true, but I'm sure we all know about how some people can twist words. Like when people call our star "the Sun" and never at any point mention it is actually a star, or if I were to call it "Sol". People do start arguments because they don't know it is actually a star or called Sol because they were never told it. Same thing applies to your argument; a person may ask "What are /all/ the things that affect the tides?", in which case it would be incorrect to state "just the Moon", but that is all people can respond with because its all they've ever been taught. I get what you mean about it being pedantic, but there are plenty of people out there who are stupid enough to assume that what they've been told is the 100% truth and that nothing else is correct.

[@Andyjpro]

My comment more or less comes down to projecting myself as this video. I'm a very detail oriented guy, some might say obsessively.

[@loopywalrus2]

angryboy2k9 The problem isn't necessarily that people are dumb or trusting bad sources. A lot of the things he said were wrong I was actually taught in school. No one really doubts the things printed in science textbooks, especially high schoolers. Even a lot of museums were wrong about the brontosaurus for years after that was disproved. It's easy for someone to learn something incorrect from a source they consider reliable like a close friend or a textbook that is actually wrong.

[@masterof4elements826]

Since this episode has aired, at least one of these things has changed.

[@LukasCoyne]

I feel they've done a great disservice to Rosalind Franklin who contributed so much to the discovery of DNA that she deserves the recognition more than Crick and Watson

[@BackfallGenius]

I've noticed a correlation between the amount of time I spend watching your videos and the amount of facts in my head. Clearly, your videos are causing me to become smarter.

[@wishtopublish]

The tongue one bothers me so much because it's SO easy to disprove. The second I heard this as an 8-year old, I took a piece of candy and rubbed it all over my tongue. I tasted sweetness all over, and after several tests I called BS on it.

[@patrickmccurry1563]

While I have greatly reduced sensitivity to sweetness everywhere but the front of my tongue.

[@Yomashi]

MY BRAIN HAS ALL THE KNOWLEDGES

[@charlotteroberts1354]

Orcas might be the largest species of the dolphin family, but all dolphins are toothed whales.

[@Silverstroke123]

51st Science Misconception Pluto was never voted back into being a planet.

[@shockwave4742]

I know a woman who is part of a campaign to get Pluto reinstated. She is such an avid campaigner that (she claims) even the space program people know about her. I for one think she's being a nuisance. As for flies, I remember one particular fly that was hanging around my house for such a long time that in my head, I actually started to write a musical from the fly's point of view. But I'm sure you'll never see this musical, and even if you did you'd find it really weird and disturbing.

[@yadidimeanmaine]

So it's a dark version of Flight of the Bumble-Bee?

[@shockwave4742]

ThatOneGuy With an added element of unrequited love. I found this fly to be a major nuisance when it flew too close to me, so in the story I wrote the fly had a huge crush on me. That should give you some idea what sort of ego I have.

[@zatoth13]

Love this! I have to use 50 all the time with people because you have folks who will cite the most oddball things as related and use manipulation to create correlation as causation. I also have read Mental Floss. Great magazine!

[@UhhKhakis]

My teacher should watch this

[@xGray3x]

THANK YOU FOR #50. EVERY NEWS ARTICLE EVER SHOULD LEARN THIS ONE. I once read an article that noticed the correlation between couples that were in a good relationships and the positions that they sleep in. They then made the very wrong conclusion that this means the position you sleep in with your partner has a strong impact on the quality of your relationship.

[@Ag8MrE]

Did they really? Is that really what the article said? Are you sure they didn't point out that correlation does not imply causation. I'd be very surprised.

[@xGray3x]

They definitely did not. They may have referenced it both ways to an extent. The article was quoting a study done elsewhere. But they clearly said something along the lines of "Pay attention to your sleeping positions, as they may have more of an effect on your relationship than you realize."

[@MajorKreissack88]

xGray3x Typical ending sentence for crappy "fun-fact" articles on tabloids and online magazines. Gah! I'm gonna stop, I soooo deeply hate reporters who botch articles pertaining to science or just statistics...

[@TheTexas1994]

This guy should have his own show. Maybe about science or something. Like call it Scishow or whatever

[@void_mayonnaise6424]

sorry, but for the first female astronaut (who happened to be russian) her speech bubble should've said "первая!" not "первый!" because she's female.

[@ionapaton7128]

h

[@Liggliluff]

And they should have used a sans-serif font for it, because it looks ugly combined with that exclamation point.

[@kensmith5694]

I counted 5 mistakes --brontosaurus is back --Fusion is often referred to as burning. "On fire" may be wrong but "burning" isn't. --They now say that there may well be a 9th planet way out there. --The first person in space was likely the pilot of an X15. It matters where you say space starts. -- "amorphous solid" is "solid" . A "delicious apple" is an "apple"

[@Liggliluff]

Technically we're on a planet floating through space, so we're all in space all the time.

[@Thoughtspresso]

As a statistician, 50 was my favorite. THANK YOU. IT NEEDED TO BE SAID.

[@Arboldenrocks]

correlation does imply causation. correlation doesn't prove causation.

[@Supermonkey-dw2jh]

It’s was a terrible example though because the state fair happens during that time because it’s summer. How is that not indirect causation?

[@D34ADCH]

I have been taught so many lies...

[@StevenDeArmond]

if it took watching this video to find that out, you got a long way to go

[@kossmikham]

You need to demand a refund from whatever school you went to.

[@k8lynmae]

99% of this video IS A LIE

[@ryancruz1876]

@@k8lynmae Source?

[@TheMarciahhh]

Was a new planet really discovered? Can we name it Gallifrey?

[@aliservan7188]

hahaha awesome, I'd subscribe to that. Let's start a petition :D

[@afa78djd]

There's been thousands of planets discovered!

[@grainofredstone]

ali Servan There is a huge petition already.

[@thedoctor3861]

Then i can finally go home :)

[@InfinityGamingYT1]

The Doctor But you destroyed your planet, and froze it in a picture. .-.

[@AdmireTheMoustache]

No wonder I failed science class. Bunch of liars.

[@AdmireTheMoustache]

***** Science teachers lied to me i cry evertym

[@AdmireTheMoustache]

***** Nah in the land of maple syrup and beavers

[@AdmireTheMoustache]

***** Well education every where has its problem. Some places more than others lol

[@TicTacMentheDouce]

AdmireTheMoustache And the problem is different from country to country. Here we have lots of really good teachers, but a very bad system.

[@AdmireTheMoustache]

TicTac MentheDouce Yeah true, always depends on the country. I'm still grateful that I can have an education though lol

[@MeowingFool]

so many things that i learned in school that you're telling me are untrue. i don't know what to do anymore

[@JuleODonnell]

Correlation does not imply causation. I think we need to tell politicians that

[@shadowmil]

Could you not say that pulsars twinkle?

[@petersmythe6462]

You cannot see Pulsars from Earth's surface with your eyes.

[@anewman513]

Pulsars pulse.

[@shadowmil]

anewman513 actually, they only spin.

[@anewman513]

***** True enough

[@waynogarfield4556]

I believe pulsars were detected by radio telescopes and not optical ones. Therefore the pulse they emit ( twinkle....lol).. By the collapsed stars high rate of spin is not visual but in another part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum.....

[@TheScientistA4]

The water spinning one is actually true, but the effects are so minuscule that for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist. However, I suppose that if you had a big enough tub of water (surface area) that was uniform in shape, the effect would be more pronounced. The reason is because the equator is moving faster around (relatively speaking) than are the poles. The outside of a CD moves faster than the center; it must do so in order to maintain the same number of "R'sPM". So the water at the southern end of the tub is actually moving more quickly due to this feature. But only by nano...units.

[@TheScientistA4]

I forgot to specify that I was talking about the northern hemisphere in this case. Oops. I'd be glad to hear counterarguments however.

[@DenniWintyr]

I believe the Coriolis effect is actually due to pressure differentials, which is why it's seen in cyclones & the like.

[@TheScientistA4]

Denni Bryant According to this video (/watch?v=i2mec3vgeaI) we're both right, at least as far as hurricanes are concerned. With draining water, the pressure difference would still exist, so we're both correct in that case as well.

[@jieunpark3409]

the person who discovered the structure of DNA was actually a woman named Rosalind Franklin...Watson and Crick simply "borrowed" her notes...and never credited her. Of course, the time being the time, no one ever thought a woman could make such a groundbreaking discovery

[@lampshade1304]

I think she also got a nobel, I'm not sure

[@paulraymundyap6563]

rosalin franklin was given due credit on my references on genetics

[@robinleonardoghizzi2742]

"But professor, pluto isn't a planet anymore" "It is according to me" Thank you professor.

[@RuadhanG]

6:15 no Rosalind Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, Watson and Crick were shown her work without her knowledge.

[@karlmuster263]

You mean went to her lecture on it? She even corrected their first model attempt because they mixed up her information (the benefits of taking notes). Also, don't forget Maurice Wilkins. They were co-discoverers. And you can argue they only discovered the shape and some other characteristics, not the actual structure.

[@Jorts417]

But back then and (I think) now you cant have more than 3 winners of the same Nobel Prize and back then women werent allowed to have Nobel Prizes

[@RuadhanG]

TunelessHalo2 Nobel prizes cannot be awarded posthumously, which was a problem as Rosalind Franklin was dead when Watson and Crick were awarded theirs.

[@eattheinvaders.3037]

@@Jorts417 In 1903, Marie Curie received a Nobel prize in physics. In 1911, Marie Curie received a Nobel prize in chemistry. In 1920 Rosalind Franklin was born.

[@PMW3]

It would have been nice if he would have touched on the "people only use 10% of their brain" myth.

[@breakitdown0505]

does that one on 50 misconceptions

[@cadkls]

Its only partially true, we use 100% of it throughout the day, but at any one given time we only use 10%.

[@RFC3514]

***** "The human brain is active at all times" does not mean that every single one of your neurons is constantly firing impulses or consuming energy. If you look at a functional MRI you'll see that huge portions of your brain have almost no activity unless you are performing specific functions (ex., some areas are only active when processing language, some areas are only active while your eyes are open, some areas are only active when you're moving your legs, etc.). Edit: BTW, breathing and heartbeat are actually not directly controlled by the brain (which is why "Mike the Headless Chicken" managed to live for 18 months after having its head cut off), they're controlled by the medulla oblongata, which is part of the brain _stem_ (located at the top of the spinal cord).

[@RFC3514]

***** He never said the brain is only active 10% of the time, nor have I ever heard _anyone_ say such a thing. Read his message again. If you still think that's what he said, maybe you're the one who suffered some damage (either to the visual cortex or the language processing neurons). Maybe he didn't reply because your comment didn't really deserve a reply...?

[@RFC3514]

***** Well, if you have "a +2 to your comment" (and if one one of them was given by yourself, surely that makes it worth even more), then you _must_ be a genius. KZbin votes are the ultimate scientific authority (and _two_ is probably a record). Sadly, though, you seem unable to understand the difference between "at any given time" and "always". And, also sadly, you seem to think KZbin is some sort of fighting ground where people are "out to get you", and where someone who writes something you don't quite understand must be "brain damaged" or "a troll". Good luck with the rest of your life.

[@george.b.]

In Russian, "первый" is masculine. What Valentina Tereshkova could have said is "первая".

[@ashleydanielle2736]

Hank! You're everywhere! Keep up the great work bub! I look forward to seeing you on your own television show one fine day.

[@TOASTEngineer]

Did anyone actually think the Sun was powered by combustion? Other than 5 year olds?

[@coinrush1]

If they did I'm leaving this planet.

[@MrHSX]

It is not about them knowing what is true. If the people you trust and love tell you something that is not true you won't know its correctness because they ar the only source you have until the age of about 13 For example if you have learnt to call the colour of the apple, "Blue", you will call that colour Blue because you don't have anything to check the fact with. Same with the fact that you cannot analyze the correctness of a language, it is impossible for a person that young in age to actually go observe or compare the factoid with the truth, in this case travelling to the Sun and observing it

[@TOASTEngineer]

MrHSX Allrightythen

[@karlmuster263]

I think a minority of people know that the sun's reactions are nuclear and not from an oxidation reaction, or just what these things mean.

[@VKingMD]

It's a good thing I didn't pay attention in school until college

[@ryancruz1876]

How did you get into college if your weren’t paying attention in school?

[@VKingMD]

@@ryancruz1876 The answer on multiple choice is usually C

[@myfatsushi]

Are there sources posted anywhere for these? Nothing in the info box but I want to look into some of these.... specifically because in university I took a course on drugs and the brain and yeah.... alcohol causes cell apoptosis. Fetal alcohol syndrome also strongly highlights this link.

[@RFC3514]

Sources? On an internet video designed to sell ads? Cut down on the booze. ;-)

[@RFC3514]

***** You seem to think that I care about random KZbin visitors (or, specifically, you...) "taking me seriously". I don't. I also don't feel the need to pretend that I speak for other people, as your slightly desperate-sounding last paragraph suggests. Equating science education with "let's play" videos? Seriously? And "everyone laughs at you" ? Are you posting from a school playground? In fact, my first post here was precisely to point out that people should *not* take these videos (or comments) too seriously, or assume that anything they see on KZbin is correct. The OP is absolutely right, and raises a very fundamental point about scientific education. There are no sources for the "facts" presented as true in this video, and for a good reason (a little bit of research would show that many of them are either false or sufficiently complex to make a "true" or "false" answer meaningless). These videos aren't meant to educate people or encourage their critical thinking, they're designed to make lazy people feel smarter by memorising simple factoids, and to keep that view counter going. The religious way in which they present things as "true" or "false" without any references or explanation is only matched by the religious way in which some of their fans defend this format (perhaps because they see it as the source of their "knowledge", or perhaps they truly don't understand the difference between scientific _reasoning_ and simple memorisation of random "facts").

[@aparkinson7]

Watson and Crick did not discover the helix shape if DNA. Rosalind Franklin did(or at least had a large role in the discovery) but was egregiously not giving any credit on account of her gender.

[@patrickmeyer2802]

some of these facts prove that there is a difference between "first in america", and "first in the world", which seems to be a commonly held misconception in itself, but only by americans

[@garygorospe6454]

😂

[@Liggliluff]

A common thing I see is when Americans don't specify "American", which causes issues. Such as the American civil war is just called "the civil war", and the "North American video game crash of 1983" is called "the video game crash of 1983". It gives the illusion that these things are global, when they aren't.

[@DenniWintyr]

Also, when Crick envisioned the double helix of DNA, he did so while tripping on LSD.

[@sabybaby99]

Or maybe he tripped over Rosalind Franklin?!?!?!

[@DenniWintyr]

Sabin Adams Oh, she was vital in the process, but it was on LSD that Crick envisioned the double helix, getting his wife to write down/draw what he was seeing.

[@RFC3514]

Denni Bryant Sadly the wife was on heroin and couldn't even hold the pencil. ;-) Actually, there is absolutely no evidence that Crick "was on LSD" at any relevant point of his DNA research. He had previously studied (and used small doses of) LSD, but the whole "DNA was discovered while on LSD" hoax seems to have been started by an article written by Alun Rees that doesn't quote any sources, and is not corroborated by anything Crick ever wrote. Of course, the internet loves that kind of thing, so you'll find it repeated in thousands of private webpages, etc.. Rosalind Franklin is who effectively figured out the _shape_ of DNA, anyway. Watson and Crick through it was a triple helix with the bases on the outside of the molecule. Which, of course, leaves another possibility: maybe they told some of their friends that they were on LSD to excuse the fact that they got it wrong. ;-)

[@DenniWintyr]

RFC3514 Well, it does quote sources, being a friend of Crick's. While Crick never confirmed the event, he also never denied it, & did go on to do research into neurology, making comments on how LSD at very low doses fits perfectly into the neurons in our brains.

[@RFC3514]

Denni Bryant Well, Crick never denied being an alien from planet Zod, either. Need I say more...? ;-) Anyway, that's ultimately irrelevant, because Crick did _not_ figure out the molecule's shape. His conjecture was a three-stranded helix with the bases on the outside. A structure that was in fact impossible (the atoms would never bond that way). Later, Watson (not Crick) saw Franklin's work (without her permission) and realised the molecule had to be a double helix. So if Crick _was_ "tripping on on LSD" at some point during his DNA research, it didn't help.

[@QuikVidGuy]

Rosaline Franklin figured out the structure of DNA

[@sciencenate]

Macaroni and Cliches you either didn’t explain this well or you’re ignorant about the process. Watson and Crick did, and her X-ray crystallography was integral to that process. She did not figure out the structure she figured out how to take an IMAGE of the structure.

[@karenmaldonado778]

Hank what are pleasure to see you here!! You're just my favorite!

[@deadboy9955]

2:10 uhm... the russian "first" you wrote is wrong gender

[@philv2529]

PWNED

[@Liggliluff]

When someone is speaking a non-gendered language and don't even consider it.

[@ElectricPyroclast]

You needed to spend another 10 hours ranting about how correlation does not imply causation. Then this world would've been a smart place...

[@RFC3514]

So many misconceptions while purporting to clear up misconceptions...

[@Angelboor]

Facts in order to disprove.

[@RFC3514]

Angel boor If I were going to spend my time "disproving" nonsensical claims people make on the internet, one by one, I wouldn't have time to eat, sleep or breathe. Luckily for you (and everyone else here), presumably you have internet access, so you already have the tools to check. The fact that you think "if someone said it on a KZbin video, then it _must_ be true, and it's up to someone else to _disprove_ it" doesn't bode well for your research methods, though. Luckily for me, I'm not responsible for your education. :-)

[@Hrolfgard]

RFC3514 Luckily, the fact that you have provided no proof of your own means that you have much, much less credibility than a long-running show built around education.

[@RFC3514]

Hrolfgard As mentioned above, I have no intention of wasting my time "disproving" all the nonsense that everyone posts on the internet. Nor should you believe anything a random person posts on a KZbin comment. Science doesn't run on "credibility", it runs on _evidence_. I'm not responsible for your education, and I couldn't care less how "credible" you think I am (I didn't even address you; I commented on a video which - as far as I know - you had no role in making). *If* you're interested in clearing up any misconceptions, *learn* about the subjects and *do your own research*. It's quite easy, these days, although it does require a bit more mental effort than thinking "this guy makes a lot of KZbin videos therefore anything he says must be right".

[@Hrolfgard]

RFC3514 Since you aren't responsible for my education, why would you feel the need to post your comment in the first place? Why do you care what misconceptions others are told? Instead of defending yourself and making unsupported claims, why not use your time in a better manner by GIVING THE REST OF US EVIDENCE. You clearly have time to type 17 lines of text, so why not use that and TELL US WHAT'S WRONG, instead of demanding that we research it ourselves. Additionally, I never said that "this guy makes a lot of videos, he must be right." The Mental Floss series is NOT just some random guy telling people things he pulled out of his ass. As crazy as it sounds, sometimes KZbin is host to informative content. This particular series IS produced following extensive research. Please do us all a favor and try to help instead of informing us that we're all misinformed.

[@estelaalfaro3369]

What is the mathimatical practice used to calculate the misconception of 1 human year is equivalent to 10-15 dog years?

[@dogwalker666]

There is no direct calculation different breeds age at different rates and have different life spans usually inversely proportional to size.

[@joannahami]

Rosalind Franklin's absence from the dna bit disturbs me

[@softmossdog]

joannahami saaaaaame, this makes me very angry. I learned about her as a high school freshman, but no one who works on this series caught that? Watson and Crick didn't discover the structure of DNA any more than they discovered DNA itself. The only thing they did was steal research.

[@hakudoushinumbernine]

Pluto was reinstated because it has two fucking moons. >_> don't you hate on my little baby

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

Johnette Williams Pluto has not been 'reinstated'. Having moons does not make it a planet.

[@guineapigguidance8086]

Johnette Williams Pluto was reinstated because at first it was revoked planet status because they decided to group it with TNOs. After declaring it wasn't a tno (recently) they removed it from that group. Because it was removed from TNOs it wasnt officially reinstated as a planet, but technically it is until they can classify it as something else.

[@hudrowportnof4058]

Johnette Williams Pluto can never be a planet because it's orbit is greatly influenced by another planetary object and is not the dominant force of gravity in it's area. It doesn't matter whether or not it has 2 or 3 bazillion moons, it's still not a planet.

[@cloudricklloyd1]

Johnette Williams Define a planet for me, then we'll talk. Planet has just as loose a definition as life.

[@kobil316SH]

Johnette Williams no it hasnt

[@DaScribbler]

So dog years are actually a direct comparison of specific stages in life? With different curves depending on breed and size? Yeah, fuck that, thats complicated. If I want a simple analogy from human to dog age the 1-7 ratio works just perfectly. Thats probably the reason people who aren't that into dogs don't use the adjusted curve.

[@brookallgood2510]

"fuck that, thats complicated"....and that is why the Human Race is doomed.

[@DaScribbler]

Brook Allgood 1:7 is just about the linear average of the dataset. It's very obious why someone would want to use simple multiplication over memorizing a particular scale. You don't need more unless you want to sound smart or are specificly involved with dogs somehow. It's simple, Its effective. Don't mess with that, just recognize what it is, an average, not an exact metric.

[@RFC3514]

Brook Allgood Which human race? Or did you mean species?

[@RFC3514]

Any comparison between dogs and humans is silly and subjective to begin with. Humans are born with more braincells than dogs will ever have, and dogs are born with a better sense of smell than humans will ever have. We have different diets, different morphologies, etc., etc.. Trying to match a human's age to a dog's age makes absolutely no sense. The only vaguely valid comparison is the simplest one: take the average human life expectancy, divide it by the average dog life expectancy, and that lets you figure out if a dog is "old" or "young" without trying to make stupid (and pedantic, and ultimately meaningless) comparisons about which age "matches" which age between two completely different species.

[@TheCardiffMafia]

If you look at any life form in general from any stage in evolution, the larger the animal, the longer it lives, another one of the many reasons humans are strange,but we have adapted to live longer despite our size, however this rule of size is not always true but then again when is anything true when you look at it from all possible angles.

[@liamsmith331]

Okay this might be small one but considering that it came from my history teacher it is quite sad, she once corrected me saying that it was not the roman republic, it was the roman empire and that even though romans had a senate they always had emperors. Upon trying to explain to her that actually Rome was a republic before becoming an empire she told me this is her job and she knows what she's talking about, and gave me a demerit.

[@Alberturkey54]

I hate that I watched this instead of doing my essay.

[@MissJessieR]

Bats can see!?!? I have been told lies........ O_o

[@ryancruz1876]

Who told you that bats couldn’t see?

[@TheKoopasArmy]

But Pluto is just a dwarf planet which is still a planet...

[@khatibjr.8408]

It's not a planet. It's just a frozen rock surrounded by a bunch of frozen rocks. You've heard of an asteroid belt? Well Pluto is in the Kuiper Belt, which is similar to an asteroid belt.

[@Wakanu]

All depends on how you define the word planet. A planet isn't just a hunk of matter orbiting a star. Astronomers decided it has to have a minimum size to merit the designation, apparently. Obviously if Pluto were the size of Mercury it would be called a planet, regardless of what belt it is in; conversely, adding a bunch of asteroids to Earth's orbit wouldn't make it not a planet. Or am I missing something here?

[@atchisonsandvig]

Wakanu One of the requirements to be a "planet" is that it must sweep out everything in its orbit. The asteroid belt doesn't effect Mars or Jupiter because it is between their respective regions. Pluto, meanwhile, has not done that. Therefore, it is not a planet, but one of many dwarf planets in the Kuiper Belt.

[@philv2529]

you can name the thing whatever you want but it's still there and we still love it because of the Disney dog (not the Roman god of the underworld)

[@Onti12300]

Thank you, Hank, for keeping the t's in "Colbert Report" silent.

[@zeromailss]

a bit disappointed he didn't mention thing like "Scientific theory" and Law etc or maybe theres more episode about this subject? ill go try to find it

[@lucijancernelic10]

This video made me feel smart. I already knew 47 out of 50 misconceptions.

[@N1Kburchy]

Think that just makes you not dumb I'm afraid :P

[@aerogirl54]

But... but... Pink Floyd...

[@JayEdgarT]

I love that the text on the teleprompter can be seen reflected on the phone in your lap at the end. :)

[@anasifferle5028]

Eehhhhhhh... Rosalind Franklin actually kind of discovered the structure of DNA… Look it up

[@SuperPlatypus123]

Yeah, didn't Hank even do a sci show episode on that?

[@ianmoseley9910]

Ana Sifferle It was a collaboration but she failed to get the recognition.

[@iLOVEpicklesBRO28]

VIVA LA PLUTO

[@burnsy96]

6:57 Hehe he doesn't know my evil corn dogs cause global warming! >:D

[@k8lynmae]

OnlyFails global warming is a hoax. Climate Change is real. They are two different things

[@Spl17s]

#31 they teach me that in school like 7 years ago (secondary school) that tongue is divided into sections and i remember picture from book, u think they changed it now or they still teach that tongue is divided into sections?

[@mr.k905]

One more misconception: Reading stuff MUCH too fast into a camera doesn’t make you appear smarter or the video better ...quite to the contrary and it’s just annoying.

[@strngrrrl19]

Except Watson and crick didn't even discover the structure of dna.... They just stole from Rosalind Franklin lmao

[@NiluGaGa]

+HoRsEcRaZy3319 no they just got the X-ray image of it from her, but figured it out on their own.

[@kaziiqbal7257]

8 spiders is too low of an estimate

[@44hawk28]

Correlation doesn't imply causation. So all the house fires that I see with fireman running around it, the fires were not started by the firemen?

[@AnaseSkyrider]

Can someone explain the difference between "Speed" and "Velocity", then? Maybe throw "Momentum" into there as well? EDIT: Okay seriously you can stop explaining speed, velocity, and momentum, guys. With thirty or so replies, did it not occur to anyone that the question was already answered, or to even go "Hmm... What's all these replies about? Couldn't possibly be the answer to the question"?

[@lucianonarno1408]

Speed is a measure of how much distance is traveled in how much time (m/s, km/h, etc) and about velocity I'm not very sure but I believe is the rate at which SPEED increases, for example, in free fall every second the object is going faster (falling with more speed)

[@AnaseSkyrider]

Luciano Narno That's acceleration.

[@CRZYCoOLkaOS]

Anase Skyrider velocity is speed with a specified direction for example 60km to the north

[@Mike-zz5dm]

Anase Skyrider Speed is distance over time. Velocity is displacement over time. Distance is what you'd expect, it's the total distance covered. Displacement is the distance from the starting point. So if I started at a point, walked in a big circle and came back to that point, my displacement would be zero, so my average velocity would be zero. Momentum is velocity times mass, so an object traveling at 2mph with a mass of 10kg has a greater momentum than an object traveling at 2mph with a mass of 1kg.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

***** What about Speed or acceleration times mass?

[@DoubleZDogg]

I just got into a heated debate with a guy who thought 1) summer and winter is caused by the Earth getting closer and farther from the Sun, 2) the equator being hotter than the poles because the equator is closer to the sun, and 3) the heat of the Sun is what keeps the Earth warm, like some kind of cosmic campfire. The best part was, when I sent him links to prove him wrong, he said "you can't just trust whatever you find on google." *facepalm*

[@geraldhenrickson7472]

Well gosh, I am 63 and what the guy says is what we were taught in school. Even today, the last answer is kinda sorta mostly correct. Atmospheric science is not my strong suit yet isn't the Sun the most important contributor to why we live in a mostly temperate world? Hmm...

[@Padre648]

It's sad how many of these facts I was taught in science classes when I was in school.

[@ryancruz1876]

How many of them?

[@SteliosSerghiou]

Fascinating video! Just to point out that, even though single ingestion of alcohol has not been shown to cause 'brain cell' death to a clinically detectable degree, chronically excessive alcohol ingestion is causally associated with dementia and cerebellar degeneration, both of which unequivocally include cell death. It is also causally associated with disorders of 'brain cell' function, such as psychotic, mood and anxiety disorders, which may or may not include 'brain cell' death. These effects may be directly due to alcohol or its products of metabolism.

[@WittowBudduh]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE PLANETS NOW!!!!!!! PULTO WAS VOTED BACK IN!!!!!

[@vzwGrey]

What's a pulto? :D

[@WittowBudduh]

Oh, Whoops! Thank you for pointing that out!

[@vzwGrey]

5Delano :D

[@wolfboy18]

I wish it was.. It will be once it meets the last requirement.

[@ablestmage]

It was not voted back in, by the way. Science isn't a voting system, either.

[@jackass9206]

And what about the Scientific definition of the word theory, versus our common usage of it. SO MANY PROBS WIFF EVOLUTION

[@hughmcshane5032]

Serious mate? How fast do you think we take this in? Your Channel is fantastic and a great way to help people access new info, but at that speed you might as well just drink a bottle of whiskey and make animal sounds. I told my nephews and nieces about your episodes and how it may help them with their studies. They said it would be easier to understand Swahili. There's no need to be The Flash, take it slowly, you have a lot of great knowledge to impart. Please think of us normal humans who need a wee bit of time to take in the world around us. P.S. Still a BRILLIANT Channel.

[@AtemiRaven]

"Super-cooled liquid," isn't a thing. If you super cool a liquid, you get a solid. Who ever invented that phrase failed physics and/or chemistry.

[@AtemiRaven]

***** Yup, that's pretty much what I meant but was too lazy to actually type it out. Super-cooled liquid won't have the traits of a solid like glass does.

[@blackm4niac]

Nabael I also heard someone claiming that glass is a liquid with an infinitely high viscosity, which is said to be the reason why some old church windows are thicker at the bottom than at the top. Equally wrong. The churchwindows thing was caused by not so accurate manufacturing methods. Also if glass could really "flow" over the course of hundreds of years, it would mean that I can put a real mean dent into a glass table by just resting a high enough weight on it for a couple of years, which just doesn't happen. The whole "Glass is liquid" thing is based on the fact that the crystaline structure of glass doesn't quite match the configuration of solid crystals. But it also doesn't quite match the configuration of liquid crystals aswell so technically speaking it's not really solid, but also not really liquid. But I think we can all agree that a window is quite solid, especially when you walk into it... unless you're the Kool Aid guy, then you'll just break it into shards

[@AtemiRaven]

blackm4niac Lol, I like people who are intelligent and actually find a way to mix a bit of humor in at the end :D. But I tend to agree entirely. Also note to that person who said "Infinitely," Viscous: If that was the case it would not only be a solid (as viscosity isn't limited only to liquid, but is a range of things, solids liquids and gasses all have viscosity as it is essentially just a combination of maliability and hardness) but it would also be infinitely dense. In otherwords, a singularity. So unless all the glass in the world suddenly starts collapsing into black holes, it's not true. Of course it really wouldn't matter at that point because well... You'd be dead.

[@Nozerone]

Nabael Soo... what you meant to say was what Robbert said? I like how you changed what you "meant" when someone called you out on it. ""Super-cooled liquid," isn't a thing. If you super cool a liquid, you get a solid. Who ever invented that phrase failed physics and/or chemistry." That is what you said. Now you turn around and basically say that you didn't mean that? You might want to look at getting into politics. They have job openings for people who will say one thing that has a clear meaning, then turn around and say "oh, i didn't mean it like that".

[@amulet2350]

***** An example of this is that video where some guys poked a beer and it turned from liquid to a solid.

[@DeathRipper97]

You'd do better to write первая for a woman.

[@getonthelist5620]

Really miss Hank's 50 or so jokes series. Also According to the three 2006 IAU guidelines that demoted Pluto to being classified as a dwarf planet, there are still 9 planets in this solar system. The Moon no longer counts as a moon. It is a planet that shares a co-orbital configuration with Earth. Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4 Closet speech.

[@timbimbap]

After watching this, I need to have a long, long talk with my science teacher.

[@andrewhazlewood4569]

The far side ("dark side") of the Moon actually gets more light than the close side because it is never shadowed by the Earth in eclipses.

[@TROOPERfarcry]

there are lunar eclipses

[@mtwendling]

Correct, I was going to point this out also.

[@TheDuchessOfPink]

This should be a TV show.

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

I knew just about all of these. I can't believe that you were taught, in science class, that the seasons had to do with our distance from the sun. That's just terrible. Good video.

[@jamesl7709]

content wise, one of the best FlossVids. Kudos.

[@Rizahawkstang]

Oh my gosh thank you for saying correlation does not imply causation. I cannot tell you how many arguments I have been involved in because someone did not understand this concept.

[@rjiggy07]

well, there's 7 and a half minutes of my life I will never get back.

[@garymedlock602]

rjiggy07 Every seven and a half minutes is seven and a half minutes you will never get back.

[@rossbodeker9510]

I wonder if number 28 needs to be updated based off that new video (or I guess set of videos) that were recently made.

[@bendumpaccount574]

As far as I can tell with minits of reasherch the brontasouris is currently thought to exist and it not existing was a mastack.

[@nickacelvn]

Love it .... short sharp and factual well done !

[@EternalSilverDragon]

No. 29: Glass is an amorphous solid - correct. An amorphous solid however, is *not* a "state somewhere between liquid and solid" (not an exact quote). An amorphous solid *is a solid* with a non-crystalline atomic structure. So it's still a solid.

[@shiranduarte]

My head was blown right at the beginning...

[@josephcope7637]

One thing I learned in high school science class is that you correct a misconception of your teacher at your own peril. My chemistry teacher claimed that the USSR had developed a rocket propelled by protons. After I pointed out that "Proton" was only the NAME of one type of their chemically fueled rockets he sneered at me and ignored my attempts to participate in class discussions.

[@Danokh]

I remember taking a state biology test in highschool where they had you read an article about how the tongue has different areas for taste

[@trinix777]

Wow, I love science and like to know things but I still learned a bunch of stuff from this.

[@marlinpierce64]

28 -- Coriolis effect does affect direction of the whirl pool in a bath tub or draining dish water. In A toilet, however, as the water enters from the rim, it has an angular momentum which dwarfs the Coriolis effect.

[@gustavmeyrink_2.0]

I've seen a guy demonstrating that once with a round bowl of water, a match stick and the equator. He stepped about 1m north of the equator, let the water settle with the match floating before removing he plug and then repeated the procedure 1m south of equator. Each time the water would eventually and slowly start to rotate while draining, one direction north and the opposite south of the equator. Being a tour guide he did that at least once a day, every day throughout his working life. Never failed to rotate in the predicted direction.

[@Liggliluff]

(2:40) According to what I've heard, "mass" is a subterm under "weight", and that weight means both mass and gravitational force. So if you use SI units, kg would be the mass, so if you weigh 80 kg, you will always weigh 80 kg regardless of where you are. But that means you weigh 785 N on earth, but that will change depending on where you are.

[@Kuchenblech_Mafioso]

My favorite: Water is not "incompressible". It's only very very hard to compress. At the bottom of the Mariana Trench (the deepest point of the ocean), you can compress water by about 5%. Many "science shows" get it wrong, maybe most notably Mythbusters.

[@iTayKay]

YOURE BLOWING MY MIND

[@RrroodboRstje]

Hello Mental Floss, I've been looking for that closet for years! Can you tell me where'd you find one?

[@VictoriaDER]

I feel so lied to..... And yet also so informed.