# Simple factual errors that drive you nuts **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 19, 2009, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504 "2009-02-19T03:19:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![judikium](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@judikium](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/judikium)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/181 "2009-02-22T18:43:22Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I think the misstatement of the Pythagorean theorem in WoO is a meta-joke. While we’re talking about the Pythagorean theorem, nothing irks me more than hearing someone refer to the theory that came from Pythagoras as “Pythagorean’s theorem.” :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/182 "2009-02-22T18:51:38Z")
> [@judikium](#): > > While we’re talking about the Pythagorean theorem, nothing irks me more than hearing someone refer to the theory that came from Pythagoras as “Pythagorean’s theorem.” > > :smack: Why? It _is_ a theorem, and arguably the theory didn’t come from him. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/183 "2009-02-22T19:19:46Z")
My guess is that **judikium** would be ok with the Pythagorean theorem or Pythagoras’ Theorem, but Pythagorean’s theorem is just nonsensical as the theorem is not the property of the adjectival form of Pythagoras. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/184 "2009-02-22T19:26:56Z")
Oh. Heh. Go go reading comprehension! ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/185 "2009-02-22T20:04:35Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > They got involved in Land Wars in Asia? 😃 Good guess, but no. It’s a little known fact that Stalin was actually born in Palermo. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/186 "2009-02-22T20:14:53Z")
> [@judikium](#): > > While we’re talking about the Pythagorean theorem, nothing irks me more than hearing someone refer to the theory that came from Pythagoras as “Pythagorean’s theorem.” > > :smack: I’ve never actually heard that mistake, for which I am grateful, as it would most likely send me into a venom-spitting rage. As I lack the glands to create venom, I would then have to find a cobra or something, extract the glands, and implant them into myself in order to fulfill the requirements of the tantrum, and as I am very clumsy I might well end up being bitten by the cobra, and no one would help me on account of me being an asshole. I would, thus, die as a result of hearing “Pythagorean’s theorem.” ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/187 "2009-02-22T20:19:25Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > A historical error I’ve read many times: “Until Columbus, people thought the earth was flat.” It’s said many times as if it’s a well known fact, which perhaps it is, but at least on the Dope I don’t have to belabor the fact that it’s a completely false fact. It’s a strange one this. It used to be the case that everyone thought it was a fact but now it’s almost gone too far the other way - as if some people believe that no one _ever_ thought the earth was flat. Certainly in the west, after about the 3rd century BC, no one has thought the earth was flat. But in other parts of the world people did think the earth was flat, even until quite recently. In India the earth was thought to be flat until about 500 AD and in China it was thought the earth was flat until the 17th Century and the arrival of western astronomy. So in a way, it’s strictly almost true to say people thought the earth was flat until Colombus, even up to a hundred years after Colombus. It’s got nothing to do with Colombus but there were peoples in the world who were of that view at that time. > **[Flat Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)** > > Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient societies subscribed to a flat-Earth cosmography. The model has undergone a recent resurgence as a conspiracy theory in the 21st century. > The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in ancient Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC). However, the early Greek cosmological view of a flat Earth persisted among most pre-Socratics (6th–5th century BC). In the early 4th centu... ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/188 "2009-02-22T20:22:55Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > So in a way, it’s strictly almost true to say people thought the earth was flat until Colombus, even up to a hundred years after Colombus. It’s got nothing to do with Colombus but there were peoples in the world who were of that view at that time. Let’s put it this way, in Columbus’ time, nobody who knew what the hell he was talking about thought the Earth was flat. The dispute was over its size, and Columbus was completely wrong about that. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/189 "2009-02-22T21:04:26Z")
> [@Ponch8](#): > > Humans only use 10% of their brain power. (Well, maybe the people who believe that crap do…) At this point I’m mostly subbing to threads for later responses. But I must comment again on one of my greatest pet peeves. (It’s **so** great a pet-peeve of mine that I immediately thought of it when I read the OP, before seeing your post. But that’s not why I am posting here.) I have two great anecdotes about how STUPID people are about this, that they not only repeat it in a mindless way, but actually add to the stupidity. One I have already posted to a thread here many moons ago at SDMB, but I may repeat it later in this thread. The more recent one is this: A very intelligent (or seeming to be same) youngish woman at a natural foods co-op. recently mentioned it, and at some point, perhaps after I tried to disabuse her of it, remarked that if we did use 100% of our brains, we’d probably be so powerful that… WE WOULDN’T NEED OUR BODIES ANYMORE! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: - “Jack” ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/190 "2009-02-22T21:18:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The farthest stars visible to the naked eye are about 4,000 light years away. You can see the galaxy Andromeda with the naked eye, and it’s 2.5 million light years away, but it’s a) not a star, and b) not 5 million light years away. > > I suppose you could theoretically wish upon a star while looking through a telescope, but I imagine it kinda ruins the moment. Probably not even then. It took a lucky long photographic exposure from the 100 inch Mt. Wilson telescope on a night of exceptional seeing to resolve individual stars in Andromeda. (which is the galaxy nearist our own Milky Way) I dont think there are any purely optical telescopes that would allow you to see extra-galactic stars by eye. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/191 "2009-02-22T21:23:21Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > When **Star Trek: Voyager** premiered alot of articles mentioned the fact that Tuvok was the first _African-American Vulcan_. He’s not even human. That’s worse than hearing people refer to Nelson Mandela as South Africa’s first African-American president. Mildly sarcastical 🙂 mode on: Minor (?) nitpick here? It depends on what was meant by the remark. An A-A Vulcan is a contradiction in (fictional) terms, to be sure, as long as we are not talking about another half-human like Spock. (And, of course, we are _not_.) However, if you check either of the two bio links at the bottom of the **Tim Russ** Wikipedia page, you will find that his city of birth certainly suggests that he qualifies as A-A! And that is **probably** what the folks who wrote the reviews **actually meant**. I mean, _y’think?_ /Mildly sarcastical 🙂 mode off! - “Jack” ETA: Oops! Even though I looked for it, I missed that someone already pointed this out. ---
**Author:** ![InLucemEdita](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7ab992/32.png) [@InLucemEdita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InLucemEdita)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/192 "2009-02-22T23:44:03Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > You missed the point: The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being born without Original Sin; it has nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. This bothers me a little…this is the second time on the Dope that I’ve been told that the Immaculate Conception of Mary _has nothing to do with_ the virgin birth of Jesus. So it’s all just a big coincidence, huh? The two things are totally unrelated is that it? I mean, sheesh, she is supposed to have been born without sin, even though sexual intercourse was involved, and then managed to conceive the son of god (if you believe) without losing her virginity. And these things have _nothing to do with_ each other? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/193 "2009-02-23T03:37:38Z")
> [@InLucemEdita](#): > > This bothers me a little…this is the second time on the Dope that I’ve been told that the Immaculate Conception of Mary _has nothing to do with_ the virgin birth of Jesus. > > So it’s all just a big coincidence, huh? The two things are totally unrelated is that it? > > I mean, sheesh, she is supposed to have been born without sin, even though sexual intercourse was involved, and then managed to conceive the son of god (if you believe) without losing her virginity. > > And these things have _nothing to do with_ each other? Of course they’re related. The mistake is that people think the “immaculate conception” was the conception of Jesus when it was actually the conception of Mary. So in that narrow context, the “immaculate conception” has nothing (directly) to do with the birth of Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Punkyova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@The\_Punkyova](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Punkyova)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/194 "2009-02-23T04:49:46Z")
> [@InLucemEdita](#): > > This bothers me a little…this is the second time on the Dope that I’ve been told that the Immaculate Conception of Mary _has nothing to do with_ the virgin birth of Jesus. > > So it’s all just a big coincidence, huh? The two things are totally unrelated is that it? > > I mean, sheesh, she is supposed to have been born without sin, even though sexual intercourse was involved, and then managed to conceive the son of god (if you believe) without losing her virginity. > > And these things have _nothing to do with_ each other? Correct. They are independent dogma. The Catholic church accepts both of them. Protestants only accept the Virgin Birth. The Immaculate Conception is fairly recent, as doctrine goes, having been officially promulgated in 1854. Protestants tend to see it as part of a trend towards giving Mary a much bigger part in salvation. (Cf., JP II declaring Mary co-redemptrix of the world.) So, despite the sarcastic tone of your question, you are correct. These things have nothing to do with each other. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/195 "2009-02-23T05:03:26Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > But evolution IS a theory. The speaker may not know what a theory is in scientific terms (gravity is “just a theory” in terms of its scientific explanation, but only the intelligent falling people doubt it exists) but the statement is not actually false. Evolution itself is a fact. There are theories on _how_ it occurs, but there is no doubt that it occurs. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/196 "2009-02-23T06:56:35Z")
> [@The\_Punkyova](#): > > So, despite the sarcastic tone of your question, you are correct. These things have nothing to do with each other. Well, they have to do with each other in the sense that Mary had to be immaculately conceived in order to be a suitable vessel to bear Jesus (as **1920s Style “Death Ray”** said). But they are, indeed, two different dogmas that are frequently confused by the name “immaculate conception” being used incorrectly for the Incarnation of Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/197 "2009-02-23T15:16:42Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > I dont think there are any purely optical telescopes that would allow you to see extra-galactic stars by eye. I just read ( **Bad Astronomer** ) Phil Plait’s new book “Death From the Skies!”. In the chapter on gamma ray bursts (pg 119), he mentions a 2008 gamma ray burst that was nearly 8 billion light years away and visible to the naked eye. Note that GRBs are stars (or ex-stars) going hypernova or neutron star/blackhole collisions. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/198 "2009-02-23T17:20:53Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This is not true, the people studied had advanced past the point of the treatments available at the time. The cure for syphillis was not found until well into the study. The previous treatment was ineffective and hard on the patient. The study was designed to see if not treating the disease gave better or worse outcomes than the poor treatments available at the time of the studies inception. And when penicillin became available in 1947 they did not cure the patients and close the study down. That was the crime. That and the lack of informed consent to begin with. You are dangerously close to be an apologist for a shameful episode here. ---
**Author:** ![imfloating](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bc79bd/32.png) [@imfloating](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/imfloating)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/199 "2009-02-23T17:36:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s quite possible that there’s a good anatomical explanation why 4/1 is a somehow optimal arrangement of digits in an intelligent life form. However, it’s probably just more likely that there are no SAG members with seven fingers on each hand. From what I understand, it’s not 4/1 but 5. Five fingers five toes five protuberances (2 legs 2arms/wings etc. 1 head). It has to do with the way the cells split up. Like limbs on a tree only in fives. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504/200 "2009-02-23T17:39:23Z")
> [@imfloating](#): > > From what I understand, it’s not 4/1 but 5. Five fingers five toes five protuberances (2 legs 2arms/wings etc. 1 head). It has to do with the way the cells split up. Like limbs on a tree only in fives. I’m referring specically to the “4 fingers, 1 opposable digit” seen in nearly all the Star Trek species, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simple-factual-errors-that-drive-you-nuts/486504.md?page=11)