# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/81 "2010-05-19T15:22:39Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > The U.S. Civil War was all about slavery. > [@gitfiddle](#): > > Being from South Carolina, I was taught the opposite, i.e. that everyone says it was about slavery but that was only part of it. I didn’t, and still don’t, buy the state’s rights argument. Any time I’ve ever heard it argued, it seems pretty clear that the economic or legal reasons for seceding wouldn’t have existed were it not for the question of slavery. > > Well, okay, I did buy it. What I mean is that, I remember thinking, “That doesn’t seem to make much sense, but the teacher said it.” Not exactly the best thought process to be encouraging in young people. > [@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. Pretty much the South was fighting \*against \*potential abolition, and the North was fighting _against_ states rights in the form of states having a unilateral right to cecede. > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > I just don’t understand how this myth perpetuates. How could anyone living near mountains or the coastline not realize that the mountain/coast disappears over the edge of the earth? And that at a certain point, you can see the ship’s sail but not its hull? Even in third grade, when the teacher said “They thought the earth was flat”, I was like “Not a chance they did.” IIRC, some early Christian theologians did dispute that the Earth could be round on theological grounds, but by the time of Dante Alighieri it was accepted the Earth was round. The myth is that people accepted church canon over the evidence of their eyes and common sense. > [@BMax](#): > > I remember seeing this in my Little Golden Book of Dinosaurs when I was about 5 years old. There was a painting of a (mislabeled) Brontosaurus with most of its body underwater and his long neck stretching to the top of the water so he could breathe. > > Dinosaurs were also portrayed with their tails dragging on the ground, and standing upright like Kangaroos. I understand that many older museum displays of dinosaur skeletons have their tails broken so they will conform to that posture From the “dinosaurs were big clumsy lizards” school of paleontology. And that they became extinct because mammals came along and outcompeted them. ---
**Author:** ![TerpBE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc8723/32.png) [@TerpBE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TerpBE)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/82 "2010-05-19T15:26:58Z")
> [@ed malin](#): > > 1. not much time is spent on the ‘survival of the fittest’ argument. giraffes can see predators from a long way off. Wouldn’t that work both ways? Generally predators don’t see mice from 1000 yards away. ---
**Author:** ![PsyXe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@PsyXe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PsyXe)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/83 "2010-05-19T15:27:25Z")
Oops, I seem to have taken sides after all. So what I’m wanting to say here is that, **Blake** , I think I agree with your conclusions, just not with that particular argument. And saying that food competition was the main driving factor doesn’t preclude either avoidance of predation, fighting, or sex (everything comes down to sex in the end, after all). And **ed malin** , I don’t think anyone is arguing that the giraffes sat down, had a conference, and said “Let’s all grow long necks, it’ll help us in this way…”. It’s a useful shorthand, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/84 "2010-05-19T15:42:46Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > The figure for junk DNA is still quite high (98%, I think), although they’ve recently found that some stuff that was thought to be junk actually has a purpose. But it’s not enough to change the number. > > When I was in school, “2 kingdoms” was still commonly taught, although a third one and perhaps a fourth was widely accepted by biologists at the time. The third (Protista) was actually mentioned in our HS biology textbook as a potential change/improvement. It’d been proposed about a century earlier – good to see the school books keeping up with the science. The “junk” DNA is the DNA that doesn’t code for the RNA that will in turn code for proteins. But apparently RNA has other cellular functions as well. And when I studied biology in the '70s, fungi were still considered part of the plant kingdom. (And even if they aren’t plants, their reproductive cycles provide an interesting example that bridges the gap between how algae reproduce and the simpler plants such as mosses.) > [@PsyXe](#): > > I don’t really have a dog in this fight, as I really prefer the browsing-line theory, but have you ever _seen_ a giraffe? Saying that it’s killed by predators at the same rate as any other animal of similar size is like saying that refrigerators get thrown about by enraged humans at the same rate of any household appliance of similar size. Sure, it happens, but not that much. Sinclair, Mduma and Brasheares say “A threshold occurs at prey body sizes of approximately 150 kg, above which ungulate species have few natural predators and exhibit food limitation”. Giraffes weigh more like 1000 kg. So they’re way out of the category where predation is the main thing to worry about. Hey, actually, this argument supports the browsing-line theory! 150kg? That sounds awfully light to me; \*\*lions \*\*average 150 kg and they hunt in prides. I grant you there is a mass where an adult herbivore is nearly immune to predation, especially if it’s a herd animal. Elephants definitely, rhinos almost definitely, buffalo and bison straddle the line between fighting back and running. As a rule of thumb I’d say if a herbivore’s survival strategy against predators is to run like hell, then it’s not immune to predation. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/85 "2010-05-19T15:43:53Z")
When blood carries oxygen, it is red. When it loses it’s oxygen it turns blue. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/WXOBJEXxNEo/hqdefault.jpg "Oxygen Transport") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXOBJEXxNEo) “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (or, any creature’s developing foetus goes through stages that are similar to stages in that creatures evolution) ---
**Author:** ![notsoheavyd3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85e7bf/32.png) [@notsoheavyd3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notsoheavyd3)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/86 "2010-05-19T15:45:45Z")
> [@TerpBE](#): > > Wouldn’t that work both ways? Generally predators don’t see mice from 1000 yards away. It’d work both ways but cats are ambush predators. They want to sneak up on their prey and kill it before it can figure out what’s happening, let alone defend itself. I’m not saying that’s why a giraffe would evolve a long neck but in this case if they can both see each other it’s an advantage for the prey species. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/87 "2010-05-19T15:55:24Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > You should have seen the looks on my Canadian cousin’s faces when I explained to them what the war of 1812 was all about. What did he think it was about? What did you think it was about. Which one of you was right? ---
**Author:** ![acetylene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@acetylene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/acetylene)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/88 "2010-05-19T16:11:19Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > Atoms are so small that we will never be able to take pictures of them. Wait, what? You mean someday we will be able to take photographs of atoms? Not imaging, we can do that already. You mean we will be able to photograph atoms when they are so much smaller than the wavelengths of visible light? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/89 "2010-05-19T16:16:26Z")
> [@ed malin](#): > > i sometimes say that evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools because its invariably taught wrong (i’m talking about pre-college institutions). giraffes have long necks because of a long series of accidents which allowed pre-modern-giraffes (pmg) with genetic mutations (or possibly variations) that produce long necks to mate with each other and survive through generations. that’s pretty much how all evolution works (based on the known evidence). Funny, that’s pretty much what I was taught (over 25 years ago)… > [@](#): > > 1. everybody seems to attribute this to darwin, but he didn’t make that claim. find the gould piece, or darwin;s works for a discussion of giraffe tails. From the sixth edition of _Origin_: > [@Charles Darwin](#): > > The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths. Granted, it was Wallace who first explicitly contrasted the adaptive origins of the giraffe’s neck, etc. with Lamarck’s “use and disuse” explanation. But Darwin most certainly had something to say about the evolution of giraffe necks. > [@](#): > > 1. not much time is spent on the ‘survival of the fittest’ argument. giraffes can see predators from a long way off. Sure, that’s _an_ advantage, but it’s very likely not the driving force behind the evolution of giraffe necks. > [@](#): > > insects are leaf eaters, fly and climb, and there are a lot of them. i don’t understand the assumption that there is more food in the treetops. there is a lot more foliage at ground level than high in the air. plus with giraffes we are only talking about 20 ft. up. i have seen credible studies showing there is no more food in the treetops than at ground level. i didn’t vouch for their conclusions, but i’ve seen nothing like scientific evidence denying this. do you know of some? i’d like to see it. In addition to **Blake** ’s cites, see also [Winning by a neck - Giraffes avoid competition with shorter browsers](http://www.physorg.com/news86017365.html) > [@](#): > > but if you read the referenced source materials, you will see that giraffes spend a lot of time feeding at ground level, with difficulty. why would they do that if there so much food up in the treetops? Mr. Darwin addressed this, as shown above – adaptations come into play primarily during times of duress. Similarly, the different beaks of Galapagos finches don’t really come into play until times are hard, and competition becomes fiercer. In times of plenty, everyone is more than happy to eat the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/90 "2010-05-19T16:31:01Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (or, any creature’s developing foetus goes through stages that are similar to stages in that creatures evolution) While it is true that fetal stages of any organism do not replicate _adult_ stages of their ancestors, they do largely replicate _fetal_ stages of their ancestors. Haeckel’s formulation was wrong, but there is a very definite link between ontogeny and phylogeny. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/91 "2010-05-19T16:35:40Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I lost interest in Physics. Because I liked the absolute, black & white rules. When I found out there’s a hundred shades of gray I lost interest. I did enjoy chemistry because most of that was black & white rules. You balance a chemical equation the same way every time. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/92 "2010-05-19T16:50:25Z")
The fluid is a solute and the powder is the solvent. 😕 ---
**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 19, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/93 "2010-05-19T17:15:49Z")
> [@PsyXe](#): > > Oops, I seem to have taken sides after all. So what I’m wanting to say here is that, **Blake** , I think I agree with your conclusions, just not with that particular argument. And saying that food competition was the main driving factor doesn’t preclude either avoidance of predation, fighting, or sex (everything comes down to sex in the end, after all). And **ed malin** , I don’t think anyone is arguing that the giraffes sat down, had a conference, and said “Let’s all grow long necks, it’ll help us in this way…”. It’s a useful shorthand, that’s all. you’re comments are very reasonable. getting back to the main theme of this thread, evolution is often taught as a cause and effect process based on suppositions about the benefits of adaptations. i did not seriously contend that giraffes had a conference to determine their future evolution, and i apologize to anyone who took my comments in that line seriously. but i have heard and seen written down many times, the conclusive statement, giraffes evolved long necks because there was more food available for them in the treetops. if that is shorthand, fine. but you are the first person to contend that this is a matter of definition, and if you understand how evolution works, and still want to use that shorthand, i have no objections. PsyXe, the following comments are not directed at you. i’m sure you undertand this already. but, several times in this thread the contention is made that less competition for food in the treetops makes more food available there. one does not follow the other. it seems obvious to me that less food grows in the treetops (where giraffes currently live) than on the ground, if there were nothing eating it. unless scientific measurement shows that ground level competition exceeds this difference then the arguments about more food in the treetops are specious. maybe the evidence shows there is actually more food growing in the treetops before feeding. i never said it didn’t. i said that i have seen reasonable studies contending otherwise, so i don’t consider the more food theory indisputable. in addition, all of the arguments about current predators and current food conditions do not have any bearing on the evolution of giraffes unless you have some evidence to show what environment giraffes evolved in. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/94 "2010-05-19T17:40:45Z")
Getting back to the OP: Pandas are bears, actually. The sun does not burn hydrogen, it fuses it. There is gravity in space. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/95 "2010-05-19T17:48:29Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > The sun does not burn hydrogen, it fuses it. The sun burns hydrogen in the sense that it consumes hydrogen. Astronomers do talk about stars burning hydrogen (or helium, or whatever). But we know they don’t burn hydrogen in the sense of combustion with oxygen. ---
**Author:** ![goodie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@goodie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/goodie)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/96 "2010-05-19T17:54:28Z")
My 7th grade health teacher told the class that women should shave legs and underarms because of the bacteria that grows more on women than men. She was such a pretty little lady…a real cutie-pie that, luckily, many of us girls paid no attention to. It’s worse when it’s the actual textbooks that are wrong and not just a kooky teacher, but we have to remember, those books were written by regular people, too. Anyone seen those old, red, Communism hardback textbooks? Crazy stuff. ---
**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 19, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/97 "2010-05-19T17:58:47Z")
> [@acetylene](#): > > Wait, what? You mean someday we will be able to take photographs of atoms? Not imaging, we can do that already. You mean we will be able to photograph atoms when they are so much smaller than the wavelengths of visible light? I was taught in school that images like this will never ever be possible. [http://www.asu.edu/clas/csss/nanotech/img/Image9.jpg](http://www.asu.edu/clas/csss/nanotech/img/Image9.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Tethered\_Kite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a5b964/32.png) [@Tethered\_Kite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tethered_Kite)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/98 "2010-05-19T18:06:27Z")
I was taught that there were seven food groups. And that anyone who said _snuck_ for _sneaked_ was poorly educated. ---
**Author:** ![notsoheavyd3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85e7bf/32.png) [@notsoheavyd3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notsoheavyd3)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/99 "2010-05-19T18:13:55Z")
> [@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. Well neither is chemistry. It definitely got “gisty” even when I was doing organic. (I mean I don’t remember any hard and fast rules about what was more neucleopholic than what, what species were a better activating group than another, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/100 "2010-05-19T18:15:08Z")
> [@Anne\_Neville](#): > > The sun burns hydrogen in the sense that it consumes hydrogen. Astronomers do talk about stars burning hydrogen (or helium, or whatever). But we know they don’t burn hydrogen in the sense of combustion with oxygen. Yes, but when the phrase “the sun burns hydrogen” appears in elementary school textbooks, the students typically assume that means combustion with oxygen. And at least when I was in school, the teachers didn’t know better either. [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=4) [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=6)