I want to believe.
One of the biggest problems we’ve seen in the world today is the prevalence—and blind acceptance—of fake news.
Who hasn’t heard someone complain about seedy sites or even established news sources that are pushing out fake headlines or unfounded stories, merely for the sake of sales?
But what about all the news we’ve already accepted for years that isn’t 100% true?
We’re only human, and in a perfect world we’d be doing our best to learn and come closer to the truth every day, but that’s simply not most people’s reality. And if you thought fake news was only a problem for this generation, think again. Plenty of things we’ve accepted as “facts” aren’t as sound as they seem…
After all, according to Redditor mikeymikeymikey1968, “My wife, a researcher at the University of Chicago, likes to say: ‘nothing can be scientifically proven, only disproven’.”
Part of This Complete LIE
“Breakfast is the most important meal of the day”. Most of the studies that support some sort of significant early morning meal are based purely on school age children and tied to attention span or academic achievement. There have been very few if any studies comparing large vs small breakfast vs Intermittent Fasting (IF) vs just eat when you’re hungry protocols and none focus on weight loss vs athletic performance or just general health. There’s also been almost nothing on what defines “part of this complete breakfast” as you see in the cereal commercials. Nothing reputable done on high protein (bacon and eggs) vs high carb (cereal and toast). It’s interesting to me that a saying so taken as fact has so little scientific evidence or protocol. (trilt)
It’s also possible that a regular breakfast is a sign that a child has a stable home environment, which can be a factor in their performance in school. (extesser)
I feel like this is the always present confounding variable in all of these studies. Especially shit like, “kids who play music for 2 hours a day are more likely to go to an Ivy school”, playing with certain toys, reading, etc, etc. Well yeah, kids who have parents that can afford to buy them instruments, pay for expensive lessons, and push their children to work hard for things and succeed are probably more likely to go to Harvard. I think in each case it says more about your home life than the actual activity. If your mom takes 30 minutes a day to read to you, she probably also does all kinds of other good mom things that gives you a leg up as well. (RickyLakeIsAMan)
Same with books. Someone told me recently the more books in a kids house the more successful they will be. However, this has nothing to do with them reading them. Its just that the more books a parent has the more likely they went to college, or are successful.
or I like this one
You are more likely to be successful with a normal name then a crazy “unique” name. However, this has nothing to do with the name itself. It just the fact that most successful parents are smart enough to not give their kid stupid ass names and the more successful a parent is the more likely their kid will be successful.
edit: apparently both of these are from Freakonomics I was not aware. (HelloI’mRIGHT)
That an individual’s fingerprints are unique. (technicalityNDBO)
In fact much of forensic science is on shaky ground. Bullet trace analysis is nonsense, bite mark analysis is suspect, and many of the labs that these tests happen are not properly accredited. DNA testing is legitimate though.
While I’m on the topic, also know that witness interviews can suffer from condemnation bias and our failing memories, and lie detectors are a whole crock of sh*t. (moffattron9000)
The Mcclintock Effect, of women living together syncing their menstural cycles. Surprisingly there is no credible scientific evidence of this, aside from the now discredited original study back in the 70s.
According to Science, women do not sync up, despite common thought.
Edit: As many have pointed out, “The Mcclintock Effect” is likely real, but it’s a purely psychological and perception effect, rather than a biological one. A menstrual cycle really isn’t that long, and the chances of syncing up for a while is really quite high.
Its like looking at indicators/blinkers on a car ahead, they do sync up for a few seconds every now and then. Add a bit of confirmation bias (We only notice when it does happen, not when it doesn’t) and boom, a perception of their being a mechanic that sync periods up.
Numerous studies of going into nunneries, women’s boarding houses and so on have shown no syncing up beyond pure chance. Keep in mind though, that the pure chance is actually pretty high anyway due to the simple mathematics of the cycles.
There is also no identified biological mechanisms. Despite what some people claim, there is actually very little evidence for human pheromones, with most scientists dismissing that they exist, it’s a controversial subject to say the least.
And sorry to piss everybody off, but Dozens of controlled scientific studies > Anecdotal evidence.(Dr_Heron)