post
It’s a collaborative site.
I like it, though there wasn't a single one of the false facts that I was taught in schools.
"Dinosaurs shed their skin all at once like snakes"
"Girls are naturally not as good at math as boys"
I don't mean to be rude, but If this was taught in your school, everyone around you is probably a moron.
Yeah, the concept is nice, but it tells me that the Big Bang doesn't explain what happened before it (the leading hypothesis is that the Big Bang started time, so there is no "before") and sources a Wikipedia article on spiders. Then, it cites the common myth about Daddy Longlegs being highly venomous, says that that wasn't dispelled until 2020, and then cites a fucking BuzzFeed listicle.
Yeah, the concept is nice, but it tells me that the Big Bang doesn’t explain what happened before it (the leading hypothesis is that the Big Bang started time, so there is no “before”)
Which is entirely correct. Time as we know it is an "inside" parameter of our universe, and therefor any causality only exists inside our universe, too. Because causality always contains a temporal element as in "Event A happened, which caused Event B later". We cannot make any assumption of "before the big bang" and therefor no assumption of "what caused the big bang" either.
At least not in any way we could relate to.
the common myth about Daddy Longlegs being highly venomous
Quite a childrens tale, even back then. Two reasons for it: First, the "Daddy Longlegs" has no ability to bite us. Even extreme thin parts of the skin, e.g. the lips, are still way to thick for it to penetrate with its teeth. Second, even if it could inject its venom (which really exists!) it would need to inject about half a cup of it into a grown adult (IIRC about the amount, it could be a quarter cup or a whole cup or something, but still in the range of "thousands of total spider weights").
I remember an episode of Mythbusters where they tested this, and I found a neat website that claims to have the result of that test. ( https://mythbusters.fandom.com/wiki/Daddy_Long_Legs_Myth ). The result was that they could bite humans and pierce the skin, but the bite was not especially problematic.
Searching for Mythbusters Daddy Long legs also brought up some YouTube suggestions from the episode, which was called Buried in Concrete. I haven't watched any yet but maybe the scene is somewhere.
Yeah I think that the "you have to discharge your batteries entirely before charging them" would be a better fit, even though it wasn't false at the time, but the technology changed
Yeah I didn't get taught any of the stuff mentioned for me either.
One thing I did notice that wasn't mentioned was the tongue map, that I was taught about in the 90's - you know the one that said that your tongue has different areas for detecting different kinds of tastes - sweet at the front tip, sour at the back, that kind of thing. All bullshit.
I remember even testing that one out as a kid, observing that it obviously wasn't true, and bringing up my experience to my teacher. "No" was basically the only response I got. How did a myth like that catch on when it was so easily testable by literally anybody?
the landing page mentions "your tongue has taste zones". though on the other hand brontosauruses are real again
"Planet X (Planet 9) exists and explains gravitational pull"
Weird conspiracy theories were not taught at my school.
Also:
In 2017, a photograph appeared to prove that Amelia Earhart survived her plane crash and was taken prisoner by the Japanese. However, it was later proven that the photo was taken two years before her disappearance, leaving the mystery unsolved.
Updated understanding emerged around 2010
The updated understanding emerged 7 years before the photo appeared?
This is why websites need downvotes.
Planet 9 a conspiracy theory? Who's conspiring against whom there :|
Afaik it was a legit theory since we discovered planet 8 that way and then people tried to use the same method for further planets. Also beyond Mercury there was supposed to be Vulcanus and people reported sightings but nothing added up
Discovery of planet 8 (Wikipedia):
unexpected changes in the orbit of Uranus led Alexis Bouvard to hypothesise that its orbit was subject to gravitational perturbation by an unknown planet. After Bouvard's death, the position of Neptune was mathematically predicted from his observations, independently, by John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier. Neptune was subsequently directly observed with a telescope
And then Mr Einstein had a thing or two to say about those gravitational disturbances being actually relativity and most things clicked into place (but you'll still have a discrepancy between the known spacetime curving and observed orbits because it's hard to know what mass is exactly where in the Kuiper belt etc.). Or something. I'm probably wrong on the details but that's the broad strokes as I remember them
We didn't get planet 9 in school either fwiw but I think it was in magazines or encyclopedia at my grandparents' place that I heard of it
Where did you go to school? I've never heard of either of those before.
Those false facts were on the site. I was never taught that.
Besides every girl in my school were better than any boy at mathematics.
Cool but flawed website.
Earlier times dont include myths that are on later years.
There is no overlap in myths between 1990 and 1970-80 but there is with the myths of the 60s, so we stopped teaching it for 20 years and then went back to it?
"Sugar causes hyperactivity in children" is mentioned to have been corrected around 1995 but stops making the list from 1980 onward. I have heard it after 95 but not from school.
I wanna recommend it to others but i cant in this state.
Just put in 2010 and most of everything it said is incredibly obvious. Plus some of the dates of updated sources seem really incorrect. For example, one of them is it is a myth that most oxygen comes from trees, but I very distinctly remember my math teacher of all people saying in 2006 or 2007 that when he was in school he corrected people that it's mostly from plankton. And even if I'm misremembering this, he definitely said something about it being from plankton in those years, but it says the updated sources are from 2020.
It says that it is a myth that the big bang theory explains where the universe came from but in 2020 we found out it doesn't explain what came before. Like... No? That's always been what it is. Sure, it's always been a Christian talking point to sort of say that, but then why say 2020?
But I guess it's hard to really gauge what should and shouldn't be included. I remember my 5th grade teacher telling me that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. I don't really remember exactly what all she said and if she got deeper into Lost Cause rhetoric than that, but she definitely said Lee was a "good man."
I think it's a neat idea but probably needs more contributors and for people to be a bit more critical with things. For example, an obvious one, I don't see it mention that Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. That would be a great thing to mention, especially if you talk about things we used to consider planets but don't any longer. Ceres is another example of this. In 1801 it was discovered and considered a planet until sometime in the 1950s (it seems like it wasn't an all-at-once shift) when it was considered an asteroid despite its planet like appearance. Now it is considered a dwarf planet like Pluto.
IMO, that site needs more cold war propaganda myths.
For example:
Myth: The US won WWII
Truth: The biggest battles of the last few years of WWII were between Germany and the USSR, and the USSR won, pushing the German army back to Berlin.
--
Myth: Unions are communism, and therefore bad.
Truth: It is thanks to Unions that we work 8 hour days instead of 12 hour days, and that we have a 2 day weekend. They're an essential part of balancing the power of the rich against the power of the workers.
--
Myth: Unions hold back the most skilled, so if you're skilled or smart you shouldn't be in a union.
Truth: The best actors in the world are members of SAG-AFTRA. They negotiate deals where they make tens of millions per movie. The union doesn't hold them back. It just means that when the film studios try to screw over the less powerful actors and the union votes to strike, the rich and powerful actors need to do their part to help the less powerful actors out.
Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet due to not clearing its orbital path.
Why would they just lie about Pluto like that?
#Pluto4Lyf
Part of the reason Pluto's classification hit so hard in the US is that it's the only 'planet' ever discovered by an USian astronomer. That national pride made the 2006 decision sting more than elsewhere. Some of the top figures from the AAS even challenged the legitimacy of the decision afterwards.
US pride, again.
Huh. I don't think national pride that was a factor in my disappointment. I was more sad because 9 is a better number than 8, and Pluto is just a cute little guy.
I care that it is draconian nonsense. It wasn't created by planetary scientists, or by consulting any. It was primarily created by a highschool teacher in Temecula California. It is temporally incongruent. Saying it is not a planet then calling it a planet in the following name is an oxymoron, or rather just moronic. And it impedes real science and science communication depreciating the era and discoveries that have happened.
The real definition of worlds is by gravitational differentiation and the point at which a body is dominated by geology.
No object is ever defined by external factors. It is a fundamental elementary logic failure to attempt to do so. If you drive your car in a bicycle lane and clear out all the cyclists, what the &%$# object is defined. Absolutely nothing! You may define a condition here, not an object, not a noun! The fact that this definition even exists is an epic embarrassment that makes the entire field look like a bunch of dogmatic clowns.
That definition exists because if you want to include Pluto and be consistent you have to include dozens of other bodies.
So it was basically laziness on the part of the international astronomical community.
Because those other bodies are worlds. In centuries to come, every one of these will be important and uniquely valued.
What kind of argument is "reality too hard to science." – Dogmatic clown level arguments. Anyone stating this should be purged from academia. This is the culture of the crisis academics talk about. This is the collapse. Fundamental contextual logic has failed. Planet is a verb, by the IAU definition, used incorrectly as a noun, in an oxymoron, with recursion. That is epic 16th century level nonsense. Nouns and verbs are what, 3rd grade level skills?
It's in fact a teenager planet and it doesn't clean his room. Once it does it will be bumped back to planet.
We're doing this for his own good.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Both 1960 and 2020 are showing the same 6 facts, and the facts shown were debunked years before 2020
Cool site but sadly the link for "Learning styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) determine how you best learn" being debunked is both dead and missing from archive.org
I'd really like to know more since I've very recently been learning about very similar processing modalities for ADHD brains
Still, cool site and resource!
Was gonna say, I've seen this reposted for so many years I figured some one would have made it by now, o/w I was gonna. Thank you not-yet-dead Internet
A short list of things you didn't realize were false, stolen from the most recent episode of the You Are Not So Smart podcast (on Intellectual Humility, Sept 14 2025):
- "The original 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds lead to a mass panic." -- It did not. However, rumors of a panic spread via newspaper op-eds about how it was a bad idea to get your news through any other medium besides newspapers. Citation: https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-worlds-panic-myth-the-infamous-radio-broadcast-did-not-cause-a-nationwide-hysteria.html
- "You can boil a frog in a pot by gradually raising the temperature of the water." -- This doesn't work; frogs just jump out when they get uncomfortable. Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
- "Lemmings march off cliffs to their deaths because they blindly follow one another." -- They don't. Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming#Misconceptions
- "...but I saw it in a Disney documentary!" -- Nope. Turns out the filmmakers paid local kids to capture a bunch of lemmings, spin them around to make them dizzy, then manually threw them off cliffs and filmed it. Citation: https://hyperallergic.com/545742/white-wilderness-disney-nature-documentary/
I actually learned the lemmings thing from the windows 95 era PC game "Lemmings". This is also how I learned that lemmings have green hair!
fun fact, lemmings was developed by a little studio called DMA designs, which later changed name to Rockstar North, and is nowadays most known for the GTA games.
They are skilled with bricklaying and mining tools too ⛏️
PC game “Lemmings”
Best game of all time IMHO. "I'll just try one more level" followed by the sunrise.
TIL Lemmings are an actual creature and not just from the PC game Lemmings! I'm guessing that's why it's named "Lemmy" and then has a logo of a rodent. I just thought it was a random name and a drawing of a mouse this whole time.
The War of the Worlds broadcast didn't cause mass hysteria, but it did cause some people to go outside and shoot at the nearest water tower.
I thought everyone knew the lemmings thing was made up. But it's become a bit of a meme nonetheless.
More extracts from that same podcast:
In each case, right up until the moment I received evidence to the contrary, all this misinformation, these supposed facts, felt true to me. I had believed them for decades and I had accepted them in part because they seemed to confirm all sorts of other ideas and opinions floating around in my mind. Plus they would have been great ways to illustrate complicated concepts, if not for the pesky fact that they were, in fact, not facts.
That's one of the reasons why common misconceptions and false beliefs like these spread from conversation to conversation and survive from generation to generation and become anecdotal currency in our marketplace of ideas. They confirm our assumptions and validate our opinions and, thus, they raise few skeptical alarms. They make sense and they help us make sense of other things.
The lemmings thing never made sense to me until I found out what the film crew did to them. There's just no way a species that susceptible to mass suicide could survive long term. They would have gone extinct long before the invention of bored documentarians.
1987 Edison was a genius and invented everything, Turns out he was actually the Elon Musk of his time.
Edison being a giant dick of a patent troll is one of the main reasons Hollywood exists. I'm not sure Musk has anything that impactful on his resume.
Oh, it wasn't just elephants. He did it with dogs, monkeys, etc. This wasn't a one-time thing, he provided this "demonstration" on a variety of occasions.
All because he wanted the world to adopt his standard for electrical transmission, direct current (DC) instead of Nikola Tesla's alternating current (AC).
Tesla was a brilliant engineer and inventor. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing (though later he did get a little nutty). Edison just yelled at engineers he hired to do work for him.
I am so sad that Tesla's name has been ruined. He was wildly intelligent and though he was a prominent figure in his prime, he died broke. It's not bad enough that he went out like that, now we have a fucking clown pissing on his grave by using his name to sell his bullshit nazimobiles.
He was trying to prove that electricity was dangerous. Even at the time though a lot of people pointed out that the voltage used was not the voltage used in mains electrics so it was basically a pointless thing to do and people quite upset about the elephant. He did receive a fair amount of bad press for it.
He wanted to show that AC lines with their heigh voltages are dangerous, as he sold low voltage DC power.
Edison's electricity was the same 110volts. But it it was 110v from generators to peoples homes and thus suffered greatly from resistance losses.
Telsa's AC however used high voltages for distribution and step down to 110v at the final destination, so the resistance losses were much lower. Edison's propaganda conveniently glosses over that fact.
Don't get me started. He did not invent the lightbulb. Did he "perfect" it? Maybe? But only after trial and error of 100's of filaments including human hair.
Can it even be said that it was perfected when later we switched from carbon filament to tungsten, and from there to halogen-surrounded tungsten.
And on the other side, Edison's lamp wasn't even the first one to be mass produced and commercially sold.
There's a certain style of education that really wants to draw a hard line between "before the thing" and "after the thing", and credit its invention to a single guy. But really the line is quite wide and fuzzy.
The one that immediately springs to mind doesn't exactly fit the criteria, because it wasn't even true at the time that I was taught it in public school in Texas. But my history teacher taught me that no real historian called it the "American Civil War," and that it was correctly called "The War of Northern Aggression." And, of course, although the Confederacy did want to keep slavery legal, their actual central reason for seceding was "states rights."
Like I said, both of those are simply lies. Only propagandists call it "The War of Northern Aggression", and it was always explicitly about slavery.
The sad thing is that I believed and repeated these lies for years after that. Note that, like most people, I didn't have access to the internet to easily check things myself. Since at the time I had zero interest in reading about history, it was difficult to correct my knowledge.
It has demonstrated, to me at least, the importance of keeping propaganda away from children. The more you lie to children, the harder it will be for them to become functioning adults.
Whereas the actual phrase should be "the atomic bombings were necessary to force an immediate total surrender and scare them damn commies before they could take any credit for the Pacific theatre"
AFAIK, historical documents show the Japanese government were ready to surrender, if they had been sure the monarchy would be preserved.
The bomb could have been replaced with properly worded surrender terms.
Is it not just the misinterpretation of the fact that the US wanted to end the war quicker to prevent sending more soldiers into a meatgrinder?
You can certainly call that "necessary" to prevent further deaths of US soldiers.
I mean, kamikaze pilots did exist, so there had to be a certain level of what you're calling "brainwashing".
And unless it's also a myth (completely possible), but weren't there Japanese soldiers found on an island years after the war had ended who were convinced that it was still going on?
The "brainwashed" thing is somewhat true, at least from the perspective of an outsider, not due to a racial thing, but there is a cultural aspect in addition to the tendency for all sides to be brainwashed by their own propaganda.
But the Japanese propaganda told their soldiers to fight to the death, because if the Americans captured you, it would be worse than death. So, from the outside, they did appear to be brainwashed in that regard. Of course, Americans had similar propaganda making Japanese seem as evil as possible, often in the most racist way, so you'd have to say that Americans were brainwashed, too.
Also, culturally, I think American culture emphasizes each person more, while Japanese emphasizes community more, which means things like kamikaze are easier to sell. And that sort of thing also appears like brainwashing to the outside.
I'm pretty sure the largest consideration was keeping the Soviets from claiming land in Asia the same way they did in Europe.
Also, we had this shiny new toy and a war was on; we weren't going to not use it.
I'd be curious if you listened to this what you would think. It does a really good job of laying out the timeline of decisions. I don't think the atomic bombs were nessecary to draw the war to a close.
I think there might be an argument for the first bomb, but the second was completely unnecessary.
Not true.
Even after the second bomb, Japan almost faced a military coup in order to keep the war going. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
They were not going to surrender without a massive show of force because of their culture.
They had literally agreed to surrender before the first bomb dropped, their only condition being that the emperor remain, which the US agreed to anyway.
I was taught it was about states rights, too. In Kentucky, they were less forceful about calling it the "war of northern aggression.
Did you get taught that some slaves liked being slaves because it meant all their needs were met and they didn't have to worry about anything?
I don't recall specifically being taught that, but I do recall believing that was a fact at the time, so it is very likely that I was taught that in class.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a couple of slaves like that, but even so, it's a misleading statement. I actually think that using the truth to lie is a worse sin than just outright lying, because it's easier to mislead more people like that.
Similarly, in the US Northeast, I learned about the civil rights movement as a solved problem, and that slavery was basically the only (and long gone) system of oppression we'd had. "Black and brown people have their equal rights now, carry on!"
I had a college professor, Honors US History, teach us that the Civil War was about trade, an agrarian society against an industrial society. Which makes sense and is true in part, but I wish I had known to bring up the various state letters of secession naming slavery as the #1 concern. LOL, Mississippi's is a doozy.
The texas schooling system is horrendous.
Most texans are genuinely dumb as shit because of how they've been hamstrung by their "education."
When I went to grade school, I think it really depended on the local school district. I was lucky enough to grow up in a nice area with well-funded schools, and I have relatively few complaints about the education I received. However, in doing school activities, I had the opportunity to see schools in poorer districts, and there was a distinct difference.
At the time, I didn't think too much about the difference, except that I didn't feel as safe in some schools.
But looking back... Now I know why parents always shop around for better school districts, because there are some places where it would have been far more difficult to get a decent education.
That's my knowledge from many decades ago. Maybe it's gotten worse since then.
We had to write angry letters to our children's school about 5 years ago to get them to stop teaching taste regions. It's really baffling.
I remember being like 7 and trying that out for myself by touching a lemon slice to different parts of my tongue. I think when I realised that it tasted sour regardless of where on my tongue I touched it to was when I first started questioning authority.
I remember many kids in my schooldays saying the same and being gaslit by the teacher into thinking they tested incorrectly.
at similar age, a teacher told me there can't be polygon bigger than 360-gon, because that would be a circle. i wasn't of course in a place to fight with her, i just thought "wtf, how dumb is this bitch?"
Class of 2003.
Food wheel was taught in elementary school. As were the taste bud "zones" and the American Dream.
We had the Food Pyramid here in Canada, which is very similarly a lie pushed by the dairy and grain industries and not linked to any real health benefits.


top 99 comments