# What inaccurate or flawed history, science, etc. lessons was I taught in school as a kid? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 18, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924 "2010-05-18T19:38:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/201 "2010-05-21T16:05:09Z")
Actually, come to think of it, what I said about the wheel does also apply to wheels used for transportation. You can think of the axle itself as another wheel, and the bearing the axle is mounted in as the second surface. The mechanical advantage of the lever-wheel then allows it to overcome the friction between the bearing and the axle. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/202 "2010-05-21T16:33:57Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > The U.S. Civil War was all about slavery. > [@Chronos](#): > > A lot of folks lately have been trying to push the idea that it was about states’ rights, but in actual fact, the only specific states’ right that was relevant was the right to slavery. So, that one wasn’t flawed. Right. Although I’ve never heard the exact phrase “all about” slavery, certainly slavery was the predominant reason for the war AND the predominant force driving the supposedly secondary, minor reasons for the war (tariffs, “states’ rights,” etc.) The Confederates of the day, who should have the last word on this, implicitly and explicitly said so themselves at the time, over and over. ---
**Author:** ![Kenyth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c68b51/32.png) [@Kenyth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenyth)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/203 "2010-05-21T16:49:15Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > , but the hydraulic ram, for instance, can be constructed without use of any of the other simple machines. The hydraulic ram uses a lever to drive a piston, to push the fluid into the ram. One-way valves keep the uncompressible fluid where it needs to be, but a sufficient lever is required to overcome the resistance at the end of the ram (ie. a floor jack for lifting cars). It’s like a ratcheting bumper jack using fluid instead of gears, but a lever is still the driving force. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/204 "2010-05-21T17:05:03Z")
> [@](#): > > The hydraulic ram uses a lever to drive a piston, to push the fluid into the ram. One-way valves keep the uncompressible fluid where it needs to be, but a sufficient lever is required to overcome the resistance at the end of the ram (ie. a floor jack for lifting cars). Well, it needn’t be a lever – it could simply be a weight, in which case no machine is needed. He might also mean the other kind of _hydraulic ram_, which is a water pump that uses the force of falling water to pump water up. There are valves to check backflow, but no levers are involved. There is (or at least was, several years ago) a large functioning one at the Ontario Science Center. > **[Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions](https://www.answers.com/redirectSearch?query=hydraulic-ram)** > > Answers is the place to go to get the answers you need and to ask the questions you want ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/205 "2010-05-21T17:17:47Z")
> [@Anne\_Neville](#): > > If you like black-and-white rules, or if you like having things work the way your common sense says they should, modern physics is definitely not for you. I always say (and my students will attest to the fact that I say it far too often) that I believe in a relativistic\* world, but I live in a Newtonian one. Saying, I go about my life as if Newton’s laws are in action, and I don’t think about the problems they have on the veryvery small end or the veryvery big end. \*(or quantum mechanical, or Einsteinian… how should I say this?) ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/206 "2010-05-21T18:12:51Z")
[QUOTE=engineer\_comp\_geek] The U.S. Civil War was all about slavery. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Chronos] A lot of folks lately have been trying to push the idea that it was about states’ rights, but in actual fact, the only specific states’ right that was relevant was the right to slavery. So, that one wasn’t flawed. [/QUOTE] > [@Sailboat](#): > > Right. Although I’ve never heard the exact phrase “all about” slavery, certainly slavery was the predominant reason for the war AND the predominant force driving the supposedly secondary, minor reasons for the war (tariffs, “states’ rights,” etc.) The Confederates of the day, who should have the last word on this, implicitly and explicitly said so themselves at the time, over and over. To say the Civil War was predominantly about slavery is a gross oversimplification, and ignores a lot of what was going on at the time. The Civil War wasn’t just about slavery or about state rights, it was mostly about control. Starting in the early 1800s, the country started to divide. The North became more industrial as the industrial revolution started to get rolling, while the South continued to build on its agricultural background. The South wanted national economic policies and laws that favored agriculture, while the North wanted policies and laws that favored manufacturing. In the decades leading up to the war, these two sides solved their conflicting ideals the same way we still do today. Whoever had the most seats in congress acted like a bully and forced the other side to do what they wanted. As the balance of power swung back and forth (based on who had the most votes at the time) each side was extremely successful in pissing the other side off. That’s why there was such a big fight over the western territories. The people in Alabama and Georgia didn’t care what the people out west did any more than they cared what the people in New York did, but they did care very much how they voted. If the western territories allowed slavery, they would vote with the South, swinging the balance of control that way. If they didn’t allow slavery, they would go with the North. By the 1860s, both sides were so pissed off at each other that if you could have somehow removed the slavery issue there still would have been a Civil War. This is why you can’t say that the war was all about slavery. Sure, slavery was the number one hot issue of the time, but there was this underlying battle for control and this “us vs. them” attitude that had developed in both the North and the South that really needs to take a lot of the blame. The underlying control issues and the decades of hatred and bitterness that had led up to the war get ignored when history books teach that the war was all about human rights. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/207 "2010-05-21T18:39:31Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > . The Civil War wasn’t just about slavery or about state rights, it was mostly about control. Starting in the early 1800s, the country started to divide. The North became more industrial as the industrial revolution started to get rolling, while the South continued to build on its agricultural background. > > The South wanted national economic policies and laws that favored agriculture, while the North wanted policies and laws that favored manufacturing. . The North= Industrial and South = agricultural divide came about precisely becuase of slavery. The South was locked into their slavery way of life due to political, economical and social factors. They were simply unwilling to go forward into the industrial age due to the fact they clung to slavery. So, it _was_ all about slavery. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/208 "2010-05-21T19:20:07Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > By the 1860s, both sides were so pissed off at each other that if you could have somehow removed the slavery issue there still would have been a Civil War. This is why you can’t say that the war was all about slavery. Sure, slavery was the number one hot issue of the time, but there was this underlying battle for control and this “us vs. them” attitude that had developed in both the North and the South that really needs to take a lot of the blame. do you have any evidence to support that claim? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/209 "2010-05-21T19:22:57Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Well, it needn’t be a lever – it could simply be a weight, in which case no machine is needed. > He might also mean the other kind of _hydraulic ram_, which is a water pump that uses the force of falling water to pump water up. There are valves to check backflow, but no levers are involved. There is (or at least was, several years ago) a large functioning one at the Ontario Science Center. > > [Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions](http://www.answers.com/topic/hydraulic-ram) combining this concept with the panama canal topic: is the panama canal the world’s largest machine? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/210 "2010-05-21T19:46:50Z")
in regards to availablility of food in the ‘treetops’: there is more research that shows favorable feeding conditions for giraffes at levels higher than other grazers can currently reach. because this work was based on the actual feeding habits of giraffes, i give it some credence. but it is not conclusive. the browse-line theory contradicts this, showing that giraffes quickly reduce the higher foliage themselves. the competition may not be with different species, but among giraffes themselves. i also have to add, clearly there is more food available to giraffes than to other animals because they can feed from ground level up to a greater height than competing species can reach. finally, none of this addresses the environment in which giraffes evolved. i haven’t seen anything that would point to access to food, predation, sexual selection, or any other reason, individually or combined as the reason that giraffes developed long necks. nor have i seen anything to say these wouldn’t be the reason either. it has been a pleasure to correspond with everyone addressing this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/211 "2010-05-21T20:11:16Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Then why did ships post a lookout in the crow’s nest? > [@RickJay](#): > > Because you can see further. > [@SlowMindThinking](#): > > Um, you can see further, why? **RickJay** , I’d like an answer to this question. Why do you think you can see farther from the crow’s nest? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/212 "2010-05-21T20:43:57Z")
> [@](#): > > is the panama canal the world’s largest machine? That would depend on how you define “machine”, and how you define a “single machine”, and on how you define “largest”. But there are certainly longer canals in the world. Using the loosest possible definition of “machine”, the current largest would probably be the VLBA radio telescope system, but it’ll be overtaken by the LISA gravitational wave detector once it launches. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/213 "2010-05-21T20:48:44Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That would depend on how you define “machine”, and how you define a “single machine”, and on how you define “largest”. But there are certainly longer canals in the world. Using the loosest possible definition of “machine”, the current largest would probably be the VLBA radio telescope system, but it’ll be overtaken by the LISA gravitational wave detector once it launches. okay, how about mechanical device? i suppose there are longer canals, or more specifically, lock systems, generally working on the same principle. so the panama canal may not be the largest. ---
**Author:** ![Porlock\_Junior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/fbc32d/32.png) [@Porlock\_Junior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Porlock_Junior)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/214 "2010-05-21T20:57:29Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > That does not seem right. The Catholic Church officially pronounced heliocentrism to be “formally heretical” in 1616. (“Formally” here seems to mean something like “technically”: they were saying that it is not really very bad, or very important, but, technically, yes it is heretical.) “Formally heretical” is one of those historical usages that trip people up. According to Annibale Fantoli in _Galileo: For Coperrnicanism and for the Church_, “… ‘formally heretical’ is not an attenuation of the qualification ‘heretical’ … but, on the contrary, it gives it a more explicit and stronger meaning.” That’s from footnote 61 to Chapter 6 of a large and very informative book, which I recommend highly to anyone willing to take it on. BTW the book is probably sound as to Church matters, published by the Vatican Observatory Press and translated into English by a Jesuit, George V. Coyne. I notice that some of the experts discussing what to do about Galileo argued that even if it was not formally heretical, it was an error in faith and required corrective action. So the formally heretical was not the lowest level of dangerous error they recognized. > [@](#): > > This was, in fact, very largely, in response to Galileo pushing them for a formal decision. Presumably he thought the case would go the other way, but he was not arrested and put on trial at this time (that did not happen until 1632, 16 years later). Indeed, in 1616 he obtained a written declaration from Cardinal Bellarmine certifying that he, personally, was _not_ suspected of being a heretic in the light of this. This document, however, also contained an injunction that Galileo should no longer promote the Copernican theory, something he obeyed for the next sixteen years, until there was a new pope in power who he _thought_ was on his side. The actual charge eventually brought against Galileo was that he had disobeyed this injunction from Bellarmine (who was dead by then), not that he had committed heresy as such. The injunction not to promote the Copernican theory has been a matter of controversy since 1633 when it turned out the Inquisition was relying a very different version of the facts from that reported by Cardinal Bellarmine. Bellarmine’s version said Galileo was ordered not to “hold or defend” those naughty ideas; but it did not forbid him to discuss it as a philosophical idea and maybe a useful calculating gimmick so long as it was _not_ something to be considered true: that is, as “hypothesis”, to use the word in the sense that Bellarmine himself used it, which is not what it means in “hypothetico-deductive method”. The other story is that he was formally and sternly ordered not to teach it in any way. I’ll spare this forum any longer discussion, even though this is crucial to understanding the whole story. Really. > [@](#): > > I do not know when, or under what circumstances, the Church reversed itself on this issue, but I think it was in the 19th century sometime. Up until then, heliocentrism was officially considered heretical. (Although no-one, I think, after Galileo, ever got into any real trouble over it. I think the powers-that-were in the Catholic Church fairly quickly realized that the Galileo prosecution had been a very serious mistake, and a PR disaster for the Church.) As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, in the 1820s they published Galileo’s unexpurgated works. But Fantoli notes that “after Galileo astronomical studies with a Copernican orientation almost completely disappear for the remainder of the 17th century.” > [@](#): > > Well, the original point I was trying to make is that, by the standards of the time (when it was quite normal for rarefied intellectual disputes to degenerate into some quite nasty name calling), the arguments about heliocentrism were not very vehement at all. The puzzling thing about the whole affair is how Galileo ever wound up getting prosecuted over a matter that most people regarded as, from a religious perspective, thoroughly trivial. Indeed, one of the main claims in support of the “It was galileo’s fault” school is that he was a super-nasty debater who made everyone hate him. This is pretty silly in terms of the actual debating behavior of scholars and scientists, then as now. Fantoli has the best available explanation for the whole regrettable mess-up, which I find convincing though I don’t like it much. Alas, it would require another posting as long as this or perhaps much longer, and I’m running out of space in the margins of this book. (Thread-jacking is a bad practice. I must go and do penance.) It depends very much on the 1616 events. And I must mention my nomination for the Real Villain: the Commissary of the Inquisition, who was not a cafeteria but one Michelangelo Seghizzi, who caused the entire brouhaha over what Galileo was really ordered to do, and did this in flagrant disregard of the orders that Pope Paul V had personally given him and Bellarmine the day before. ---
**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:** [May 21, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/215 "2010-05-21T21:03:44Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Right. Although I’ve never heard the exact phrase “all about” slavery, certainly slavery was the predominant reason for the war AND the predominant force driving the supposedly secondary, minor reasons for the war (tariffs, “states’ rights,” etc.) The Confederates of the day, who should have the last word on this, implicitly and explicitly said so themselves at the time, over and over. Cite? I’m not doubting you; I just want the proof for extra-board purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/216 "2010-05-21T21:18:19Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Cite? > > I’m not doubting you; I just want the proof for extra-board purposes. I’ll let the experts chime in more, but for starters. . . In [South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession](http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html), slavery appears quite prominently. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/217 "2010-05-21T21:21:33Z")
If the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, the Missouri Compromise doesn’t make sense. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/218 "2010-05-21T21:41:13Z")
My example of mis-taught history: US history all traces back to the Pilgrims, and the Mayflower Compact is the foundation of our democracy. (Typical example from Schoolhouse Rock: [No More Kings](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0LmYEjXNIg).) Uh, what about Jamestown and the Virginia colony? The Virginians were electing representatives to the [House of Burgesses](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Burgesses) before the Pilgrims crossed the horizon. They didn’t need the Mayflower Compact to teach them how. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/219 "2010-05-21T22:09:59Z")
Trivia I’ve heard that clarified the “misconceptions” we were taught: There were two ancient philosophers who ued two different calculations to determine the size of the world. One said it was 8,000 miles in diameter (the old “sun in the well at midday” thing) and another said it was only 4,000 miles in diameter. Most learned people of the day held the (we now know) correct view. Columbus took the other view; calculated roughly how far to the east China was from Marco Polo’s journals of how far he travelled; and decided Cathay and the orient were only a few thousand miles west from Iberia. So he wasn’t stupid or ignorant or visionary, just picked the wrong theory to believe in. We think he firt set foot on San Salvador island, but nobody knows for sure. It took several voyages for him to realize these were not the “Indies”. An article I read way back in the 1970’s on the trial of Galileo, that included new research permitted in the Vatican archives… The author suggested that the social climate of the time was to blame. As a reaction to the church, there were several mystical nutbars spouting all sorts of pseudo-spiritual nonsense; probably the way we view teh Carlos Castenada -type mysticism today. Among other crap, some of these latched on to the Copernican discoveries to prove the church was full of it. In retaliation, the church decided that a public crackdown on terrorists/hertics was in order, and anyone whose peg was too high was hammered down. Galileo was recognized as an honest scientist and tolerated until he went too far and to publically. Even so, after the example was set he was treated kindly… So partly he was an asshole who did not know when to shut up, partly he was like the guys who try to honestly publish race-vs-intelligence statistics today (yeah? who?) only to have themselves drawn into rednecks-vs-politically-correct wars. The war of 1812? Like most wars of its time, a disorganized disaster. I saw “Billy Budd” in the theatre when I was about 7 years old, and my dad (from Britain) told me about how the British had basically abducted any US sailors they cared to on the high seas. The British were too busy with Napoleon to do much other than burn the white house (which was then whitewashed in the days before pressure washers) but lost pretty much evrywhere else; except Canada, where they Americans lost to a bunch of British regulars and local militia; but still managed to blow up Toronto, which apparently was no great loss. Giraffes? If you think longer necks vs. food is irrelevant - as others mentioned, have a look at the grazing line. When I drive past fields with trees and cows in them there is a distinct line below which the branches are picked clean and chewed off. It’s a cleaner line than most people with hedgeclippers can make. Similarly, in the wooded patches where deer hide by the farmers’ fields, the same line can be seen on the trees at deer height. I have a marvellous picture of the thicket of trees in the middle of a field at the southernmost point of NZ South Island, where there is a clean line where the green ends at sheep height. It’s not hard to see that taller animals would have a distinct advantage, insects or not, when the population density or tree un-density limited food supplies. A lot of the “sexual selection” process is based on the ability to perceive “healthy and successful”. This is why some male birds have incredible plumage - it’s their only way to demonstrate “healthy”. Animals where the male instead contributes to raising the offspring tend not to go in for this display. For giraffes, the ones that could feed better would look more healthy, be attracted to each other. Natural selection. All the adaptions mentioned in the article about longer necks - heart size, lung size, etc. - are natural adaptions to the problems that extra neck length produces. Better able to see predators, whiffle rivals, or whatever- collateral bonuses that come along with the attributes. Even pencil-necked geeks of the animal world will eat grass seed if it’s available. I’m sure seeds have much higher nutrition content than plain lleaves, even if you have the ruminant’s ability to convert cellulose into food. (DO giraffes have that?). OTOH, when all the ground-level food is gone, they have a wider smorg left than the mundane grazers. ---
**Author:** ![EdwardLost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bbe5ce/32.png) [@EdwardLost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwardLost)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/220 "2010-05-21T23:03:21Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Edison was a dick. I’ve read that a big reason the movie industry moved to California was that Edison was very active in enforcing his patent rights on movie cameras. He hired thugs to track down unlicensed movie makers on the East Coast and smash their cameras. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924.md?page=12)