# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/141 "2010-05-20T16:28:28Z")
> [@Tethered\_Kite](#): > > Just in case you don’t mind someone a little older chiming in I’m still stinging over the scolding I got from a Sociology 101 prof when I questioned his comment about _tabula rasa._ That would have been in 1972. What about it? That it exists? It’s probably a strawman to say certain people believe in it 100%, but it is still rather common in some fields to emphasize nurture and ignore nature. Things I learned: 1. Pandas weren’t bears, just like Koalas. Now it turns out they’re pretty closely related. (Mentioned upthread, repeated for emphasis). 2. “Ring Around the Rosie” was supposed to be about the bubonic plague. I think we had a Pit thread about this a few years ago. 3. Centrifugal force exists when things spin. I’m not a physicist so I still don’t get this one. 4. “Rule of thumb” refers to the width of a stick that a man was allowed to wield to beat his wife. I actually heard this one less than a month ago (but not for the first time). I didn’t call him on it, and it was the last class meeting anyway. This one is actually not completely false, but instead conflates two similar but unrelated historical phenomena. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/142 "2010-05-20T16:51:38Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > 1. Centrifugal force exists when things spin. I’m not a physicist so I still don’t get this one. There’s an [XKCD](http://xkcd.com/123/) for everything. ---
**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 20, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/143 "2010-05-20T17:03:16Z")
To put it more explicitly, centrifugal force is exactly as real as gravity. You can always choose a reference frame where neither one is in effect, and sometimes it’s more convenient to work in such a reference frame. But sometimes it’s more convenient to work in a frame where they do exist, and in such cases it’s counterproductive to stutter “But, but, but… It’s not _real_”. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 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/539924/144 "2010-05-20T17:05:01Z")
> [@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? While it is of course indisputably true that all sane Europeans in 1492 knew the Earth was round, what’s with this “You can see the ship’s sail but not its hull” thing? I’ve never seen that, never seen a picture of it. It’s nonsense. The Earth’s curvature isn’t dramatic enough for human eyesight to see such things. ---
**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 20, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/145 "2010-05-20T17:11:10Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Things I learned: > > 1. Pandas weren’t bears, just like Koalas. Now it turns out they’re pretty closely related. (Mentioned upthread, repeated for emphasis). I had learned that pandas weren’t bears, and that they were most closely related to [red pandas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Panda), which were, in turn, most closely related to raccoons. Of course, with the advent of molecular phylogenetics, we now have a better picture (i.e., pandas are true bears, and placed in Ursidae; red pandas are their own group [Ailuridae], which is closely related to raccoons, skunks and weasels). And, when I was in school, we learned that birds and reptiles were taxonomically distinct… ---
**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 20, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/146 "2010-05-20T17:16:23Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > While it is of course indisputably true that all sane Europeans in 1492 knew the Earth was round, what’s with this “You can see the ship’s sail but not its hull” thing? I’ve never seen that, never seen a picture of it. It’s nonsense. The Earth’s curvature isn’t dramatic enough for human eyesight to see such things. Then why did ships post a lookout in the crow’s nest? ---
**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 20, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/147 "2010-05-20T17:18:12Z")
> [@](#): > > what’s with this “You can see the ship’s sail but not its hull” thing? I’ve never seen that, never seen a picture of it. It’s nonsense. The Earth’s curvature isn’t dramatic enough for human eyesight to see such things. They constantly comment on this in naval fiction, like the Horatio Hornblower novels. They talk about ships being so far away that they’re “hull down”, with only the masts visible. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/148 "2010-05-20T17:22:05Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > While it is of course indisputably true that all sane Europeans in 1492 knew the Earth was round, what’s with this “You can see the ship’s sail but not its hull” thing? I’ve never seen that, never seen a picture of it. It’s nonsense. The Earth’s curvature isn’t dramatic enough for human eyesight to see such things. Sorry, what? The horizon distance for an average height human is only about three miles. This is easy to see from any beach with ship traffic on a calm day; heck, there are a number of BIng/Google images of it available via easy search (albeit not with sails, there aren’t a lot of tall sail ships around any more. Usually the photos are cargo vessels.). Have you ever stood on a beach and looked for this effect? It’s not only visible, it’s _trivially_ visible on a large ship. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/149 "2010-05-20T17:37:36Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Then why did ships post a lookout in the crow’s nest? Because you can see further. It doesn’t matter if you can’t see the sails-but-not-hull thing; being in the crow’s nest is still a better vantage point for long range observation. For one thing, there’s nothing in your way; even if you couldn’t see FURTHER, there’s no place on the deck of a sailing ship from where you have an unobstructed view in every direction. [QUOTE=TimeWinder] Have you ever stood on a beach and looked for this effect? It’s not only visible, it’s trivially visible on a large ship [/QUOTE] Yes, I have, and have yet to see it. And I can’t find a decent image of it by Googling for it, either. Having said that, most images on the 'net are sucky photos, so it’s hard to tell if part of the ship’s below the horizon. Added later: Found one good picture, but it looks like it was taken through a telescope or binoculars. ---
**Author:** ![SurveyorAlpha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@SurveyorAlpha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SurveyorAlpha)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/150 "2010-05-20T17:38:07Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > While it is of course indisputably true that all sane Europeans in 1492 knew the Earth was round, what’s with this “You can see the ship’s sail but not its hull” thing? I’ve never seen that, never seen a picture of it. It’s nonsense. The Earth’s curvature isn’t dramatic enough for human eyesight to see such things. As has been discussed, the curvature of the earth is a lot more pronounced than you seem to think. For optical surveys, we have to factor in curvature on our vertical measurements. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/151 "2010-05-20T17:44:54Z")
You should never end a sentence with a preposition…besides, who would want to? ---
**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 20, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/152 "2010-05-20T17:51:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If anyone else made astronomical observations with the telescope before him, I’ve never heard of it. With his scope, he observed sunspots and lunar mountains (of which he also measured the height), both of which went against the assumption that heavenly bodies are perfect, and also observed phases of Venus and the hitherto-unknown moons of Jupiter. both of which make the heliocentric model more plausible. He also paved the way for Newton’s laws of motion, though the really serious work on that relied on calculus. This is. if I may, a bit more conservative than necessary. The phases of Venus as observed with the telescope are simply not possible in the classic model of Ptolemy, as a matter of geometry. The system of Tycho Brahe does allow the phases, and it’s often claimed that by the time Galileo said anything, the Tychonian theory was already being adopted by astronomers. However, according to the only actual scholarship I’ve seen on the matter, it’s not so: the theory beccame popular with the Jesuit astronomers only from 1616, when Catholics were forbidden to believe that the Copernican model was true. At that point they needed _something_ that didn’t actually contradict direct evidence. BTW, Christopher Clavius, the great Jesuit astronomer of the preceding generation, scorned Tycho’s system as much as Kepler and Galileo did. ---
**Author:** ![SlowMindThinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@SlowMindThinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlowMindThinking)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/153 "2010-05-20T18:03:20Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Because you can see further. It doesn’t matter if you can’t see the sails-but-not-hull thing; being in the crow’s nest is still a better vantage point for long range observation. For one thing, there’s nothing in your way; even if you couldn’t see FURTHER, there’s no place on the deck of a sailing ship from where you have an unobstructed view in every direction. > Yes, I have, and have yet to see it. And I can’t find a decent image of it by Googling for it, either. Having said that, most images on the 'net are sucky photos, so it’s hard to tell if part of the ship’s below the horizon. > > Added later: Found one good picture, but it looks like it was taken through a telescope or binoculars. Um, you can see further, why? Hint, it has nothing to do with the air being less dense at higher altitudes. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/154 "2010-05-20T18:44:55Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > 1. “Rule of thumb” refers to the width of a stick that a man was allowed to wield to beat his wife. I actually heard this one less than a month ago (but not for the first time). I didn’t call him on it, and it was the last class meeting anyway. This one is actually not completely false, but instead conflates two similar but unrelated historical phenomena. Don’t leave us hanging. What were the two similar but unrelated historical phenomena? ---
**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 20, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/155 "2010-05-20T18:53:36Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > [Thomas](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090114110948.htm) [Harriot](http://cnx.org/content/m11979/latest/) (also a very important, but much neglected figure in the history of [mathematics](http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Harriot.html)). > > Galileo became famous, initially, for his telescopic observations, and later for his contributions to physics. He was not “a ‘lightening rod’ for the heretical views of his contemporaries” because it never really occurred to anybody that heliocentrism might be heretical (at least in any way that mattered) until Galileo started getting people (mostly professors with careers in teaching Aristotelian physics) pissed off at him. At that point, the claim that heliocentrism contradicts an obscure quite theologically insignificant passage in the Bible was dragged up as a way to try and discredit him. (In fact, it requires a pretty tendentious reading of the Bible passage in question to make it even seem like a superficial contradiction, and, in any case, the Catholic Church of the time was in no way committed to reading everything in the Bible literally. They were not modem American fundamentalists.) Initially, the powers-that-were in the Church found this accusation quite ludicrous, made the accusers apologize humbly to Galileo, and punished them. It took about another 16 years of misunderstandings, political intrigues, and arrogant (or, at last, politically inept) moves on Galileo’s part to turn this situation into one in which he would be put on trial (and not directly for heresy, by the way). To say that the heresy charge “never occurred to anyone” is putting it a good deal too strongly. Luther’s remark, to be sure, is more dinner-table conversation than sober judgment; but Melanchthon was strongly opposed to the Copernican business, as were some Catholics. Mostly, though, the whole question was not taken seriously at the time. The real trouble starts after 1610. Interesting coincidence: that’s when Galileo published his observations. My own opinion is that it’s no coincidence whatever, because suddenly there was real evidence – convincing to the Jesuits a couple of years later when they could confirm it themselves – that the old geocentric position simply didn’t work. Suddenly people had to think about whether Copernicus was right, as a question of fact. Note that the question of fact versus clever idea was central to what the Church decided formally in 1616, when Galileo made his ill-fated trip to Rome to talk sense to the hierarchy. Which is not to absolve the philosophers of blame by any means. At least one historian of science concluded after half a lifetime of study that he and others had put too much blame on the Church, while the worst villains were the academics. But the idea of heresy did find immediate and massive support once it was raised. As to people apologizing to Galileo, it’s true that Caccini, the hothead who was disclaimed by some of his fellow Dominicans and disbelieved by the officials when he tesitified on Galileo, did present an apology and was probably pushed into it. Were there others? And is there reason to believe he was put up to the attacks by philosophers? In any case it’s not clear that he got any worse punishment than a reprimand. By contrast, the priest Foscarini, who had written a book supporting heliocentrism as true and trying to reconcile it with Scripture, had his book suppressed explicitly by the 1616 decree, along with any other that might try to do the same; and his printer was arrested. The Good Guys were not winners in this exchange. 1616 was no victory for Galileo. By the best evidence we have, which is the Vatican’s minutes, Bellarmine saved Galileo, and a bit of the Church’s reputation, by making a compromise with the Dominicans, who wanted the whole Copernican idea totally banned. Cardinal Bellarmine as the moderate mediator: there’s one they didn’t tell you about in school! But he, the greatest Catholic theologian of the time, was personally convinced that heliocentrism contradicted Scripture, and that it mattered a great deal; and that opinion prevailed. Note that when after some years they allowed a re-issue of Copernicus, it was with “corrections” to make it clear the Copernicus didn’t think this stuff was really true. And when, 100 years later, they re-issued Galileo’s works, it was with the same sort of emendations. THey were still serious after all that time. about the question of the Truth versus clever philosophizing. Post Script: After another 100 years they finally put out an unexpurgated edition of Galileo. One official who had to sign off on the project refused to approve this heretical stuff, and had to be pressured to sign or lose his job. This confirmed a satirical prophecy that Galileo wrote in his copy of the Dialogue. This proves nothing, but I like the irony and all. BTW, thanks for the posting. It made me look up things I’d forgotten, which is all to the good, especially when I found I was wrong about some of the things I was going to say. ---
**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 20, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/156 "2010-05-20T19:24:45Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > There is no credible evidence for the story that he muttered “it moves all the same” (or whatever that is in Italian) and, frankly, it would have been insane of him to do so. He wasn’t _that_ arrogant! It would indeed have been insane, in the standard account in which at the end of his trial he stamps his foot on the ground and says that it does move. A direct ticket to the Stake, if you recant on a confession of heretical tendencies. But, as has been pointed out, the old story that the whole thing was invented a century later turns to be wrong. The painting that disproved it was discovered in 1911, so the news ought to be spread around before a full century has elapsed! It’s a Spanish painting, which is twice odd, in that Madrid is many miles from Rome and was a lot more hostile to the unorthodox. Here’s a little-known connection: Ottavio Piccolimini, a military officer, was in Madrid at that time. His brother Ascanio was the bishop with whom Galileo stayed in the time after his trial and was a sympathetic host and a lifelong friend to Galileo. We can guess how the story got to Madrid. Naturally the original story, whatever it was, got garbled in the oral tradition. The painting is not much help here: it shows Galileo in a dungeon, where he never was. the fact _could_ have been, and it’s a pleasing and consistent story, that this is what Galileo said upon leaving Archbishop Piccolomin’s residence to return home. ---
**Author:** ![SlowMindThinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@SlowMindThinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlowMindThinking)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/157 "2010-05-20T19:32:35Z")
IIRC, the history I read in Physics Today on the history of heliocentrism made a statement along the lines of"the Catholic Church (as an organization) did not oppose the heliocentric theory until the Protestants adopted it." Before then, there were people within the Catholic Church on both sides of the issue. I’ve been wondering how much of the vehemence of the arguments wasn’t a holdover from the Renaissance and Scholastic zeitgeist. That ancient texts were better than new texts, etc. So that the arguments were more cultural opposition within academia, along the lines of, “You moron! Everyone knows that’s just stupid!” than doctrinal religious opposition. ---
**Author:** ![gitfiddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/898d66/32.png) [@gitfiddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gitfiddle)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/158 "2010-05-20T19:33:17Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > You should never end a sentence with a preposition…besides, who would want to? There are a lot of grammatical rules that now seem totally bunk to me. We were taught not to start a sentence with a conjunction. But one often reads books and newspapers that do so.\* We were taught that a paragraph had to have a certain number of sentences (I think at least five), and that one should not split an infinitive. I had been thinking about this for a long time when I heard [this](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103171738&ft=1&f=5) and read [this](http://www.amazon.com/Woe-Grammarphobes-Guide-Better-English/dp/1573226254), but of which seemed to justify a lot of my skepticism. - And yes, I know that there are often books and newspapers with grammatical errors, but what I mean is that it seems to be accepted. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/159 "2010-05-20T19:58:31Z")
> [@gitfiddle](#): > > There are a lot of grammatical rules that now seem totally bunk to me. We were taught not to start a sentence with a conjunction. But one often reads books and newspapers that do so.\* We were taught that a paragraph had to have a certain number of sentences (I think at least five), and that one should not split an infinitive. Those are usage rules, not grammar rules, and particularly stupid ones at that. The primary difference between usage and grammar is that usage is prescriptive and driven by fashion, whereas grammar is descriptive and purely an observational science. In short, usage is what someone thinks you _ought_ to be doing, whereas grammar is what linguists _observe_ you doing. And, yes, you pretty much have to take college-level linguistics courses before teachers start getting this right. ---
**Author:** ![gitfiddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/898d66/32.png) [@gitfiddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gitfiddle)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-inaccurate-or-flawed-history-science-etc-lessons-was-i-taught-in-school-as-a-kid/539924/160 "2010-05-20T20:29:11Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Those are usage rules, not grammar rules, and particularly stupid ones at that. > > The primary difference between usage and grammar is that usage is prescriptive and driven by fashion, whereas grammar is descriptive and purely an observational science. In short, usage is what someone thinks you _ought_ to be doing, whereas grammar is what linguists _observe_ you doing. > > And, yes, you pretty much have to take college-level linguistics courses before teachers start getting this right. I agree with your distinction (or that there is a distinction to be made), but at the same time, that’s because I’ve taken linguistics classes. Don’t you think that when most people talk about grammar, they’re talking about both grammar and usage? For example, I’ve never heard of a school that teaches usage classes/lessons, but there’s plenty of “grammar.” [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=7) [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=9)