The persistence of falsehoods

By -
I will cite another case with no particular ideological implications. I saw an add for an upcoming movie on TV tonight. In the ad, Morgan Freeman cites the "fact" that humans only use 10% of their brain.

The real fact, that this 10% myth is nonsense, has been widely circulated. And yet the myth keeps showing up again and again. Is it really the case that once a falsehood gets out there, it will continue to circulate forever?

Comments

  1. Bobybuilder10:47 PM

    The first rule of public relations: get your lie out first.

    BS factoids survive when they serve a purpose, like many of the feminist factoids, such as "the rule of thumb." The 10% serves hucksters who promise to unlock your secret potential. In many ways, especially political ways, people convince themselves they can choose what is true. They choose what is convenient, and to hand, and repeat it. There was a factoid about a famous USSC case a few years ago. I refuted it by citing the actual issued judgment. Made no difference; my interlocutor just kept repeating what he said before. I have heard it repeated often.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more