I mean not really. Greater jihad is a fully inner struggle to be a good person. Lesser jihad is about converting others, the lesser jihad of the pen/tongue is about debate and proselytizing, onky jihad of the sword is about violence and only those in active combat. For all Muslims the greater jihad is the most important part, and for 95% of Muslims the jihad of the pen is the only relavent part. In the Qur'an there are roughly 30 references to greater jihad, and 10 or so for the lesser jihad.
The "we have more than 5 senses" insistence, while interesting, misconstrues what is typically understood as a "sense" by the average person.
When children are taught what the 5 senses are, i.e. seeing, hearing, touch, taste and smell, these are more literary senses than scientific ones. (In another vein, it's like disagreeing whether a tomato is a vegetable, fruit, or both -- scientists and cooks have different definitions!)
Proprioception, the unconscious spatial perception of your body parts, falls under "feel." Hunger and thirst do, too. I feel hungry, I feel that my leg is below me, I feel off-balance. These scientifically-defined senses fall under one literary sense or another.
Since this is just a mangling of definitions, it's almost irresponsible to call the five-senses thing a misconception. That being said, it did interest me; did you know that endolymph fluid in our ears uses its inertia to tell us what's going on when we turn our heads? ツ
"Effect of systemic monosodium glutamate (MSG) on headache and pericranial muscle sensitivity :
"We conducted a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study to investigate the occurrence of adverse effects such as headache... there was a significant increase in reports of headache..." SOURCE
In addition, if you add oil to your cooked and drained pasta, it absolutely stops it from sticking vs. not adding oil. Just don't add it to the water, as it's just wasteful.
I question the salt in boiling water one. Sure it probably doesn't change the temperature or energy required but shouldn't it aid in nucleation to make the boil more bubbly?
Or are the existing impurities in most tap water such that salt doesn't add anything meaningful?
If you throw it in just before it's boiling yes, you will see the water bubble up for a moment for the reason you said...
once dissolved if anything at those amounts, it raises the boiling temp a little
Salted water boils at a higher temp vs. unsalted water - this is known as boiling point elevation. But I don't know offhand (there's a formula) how much salt would be required to meaningfully raise the boiling point.
Iirc trees aren't a cladistic group; "tree" is a word that describes a phenotype. Bananas absolutely grow on trees because "a tree-like herb" is a tree.
Edit: adding salt to water does change the boiling point. The amount is simply not enough to be significant most of the time. Similarly, the coriolis effect does affect the movement of water in toilets, just not enough to be noticeable.
Edit2: multi-personality disorder isn't a thing. Disassociative Identity Disorder (DID) is what's being referenced.
A pretty good number of these are just pointing out differences between colloquial language and specific language.
Botanical language is useful for botanists to communicate with each other but I’m not putting tomatoes in the fruit salad. Thinking of tomatoes as veggies in your kitchen isn’t some MYTH! Calling a tall plant a tree is useful for you and I to communicate. That does not mean we are deceived or attempting to undermine the work of our botany friends.
An oak tree is more closely related to corn and wheat than it is to a pine tree. Coelacanths are more closly related to whales than they are to tunas. Biology gets weird man.
So many of these are widely known and make up a misconception that doesn't exist (bananas not on trees... you don't say??)
Others are bad plays at words (we have 5 external senses, people often leave the external part out when they talk, so what?)
And then some are just weird, like the great wall of China being nature (and not visible from space, why go after a random joke from the 90's?) or how the sizes of the circles are so unnecessarily different, sometimes overlapping with the text
Just all around, this is bad
EDIT Oh, and some are even wrong (bats' vision is so bad compared to humans that they'd be legally blind; sugar gives a energy boost I'm not sure wtf the text is on about with ADHD; evolution is a theory, it just is)
Which are the other ones? When I try to look it up, I find 20+ senses but except for the five traditional ones they're all internal senses such as balance and hunger
EDIT I see pain, itch and pressure are separate from touch, well TIL!
Fun fact I learned this week, humans have no sense for water, we work out something is wet by combining things, like if it's cold, if the pressure is different, if it's moving past us, but can't actually tell wetness.
I've noticed that recently when touching cool things (especially clothes) with latex gloves on; they feel damp, but I know that they're not. My guess is that the heat draw of the cool object simulates the cooling effect of evaporating water, and the latex glove prevents the texture from giving away that it's dry.
I think that's probably it. I know it's always a game when you get the clothes out the dryer after a while to work out if it's still damp or if it's just cold.
The guy you’re replying to doesn’t realize this post is written for people like him, while OP doesn’t realize that dumb people who think we only have 5 senses don’t believe in science anyway.
The sugar one drives me nuts. Like yeah sugar doesn’t cause DSM-5 “hyperactivity”. Like of course not! It does give a little energy boost. And the rugrats will use the highly available energy and become a hilarious unmanageable dufus for a half hour or so.
If you actually thought that candy was going to give your child a diagnosable psychiatric condition… you’re a huge fucking idiot. If you haven’t ever noticed that giving a kid a bag of sour patch kids gets them riled up, you haven’t spent much time with kids.
Yeah, that's the one that has me doubting the entire list. My kids do get a "sugar high".
The wording they use is off and may be technically right. but if we are going based off the wording they use i don't think it would be a common belief.
I'm just about done with lemmy to because of assholes like you. Jesus christ its worse than reddit.
All it would take is, hey not how sugar highs work you don't actually get energy from them, what actually happens is a dopamine rush that makes people happy and happy kids tend to run around and play more.
Took me 2 minutes of googling to find that. Did i ever say this list is bullshit? Should be burned? Has no factual basis?
No, i just gave my experience, what i seem to have seen in my life, and question the list. I'm happy to have a conversation about it or i wouldn't have posted.
But you just go around insulting people and comparing them to Trump supporters. Grow up. Have a damn conversation. Stop trying to turn everything into an argument
I feel that. There's a lot of smug superiority online in general, where people seem to think that someone being incorrect about something is an invitation to insult them, and where the harder you insult them, the better. It's sad. I blame television to some extent. TV shows and movies love to portray tough conversations ending with some sort of hard but true emotional jab that snaps the other person into understanding. Total bullshit, that rarely works in real life.
I've taken to politely calling them out and questioning the rationale behind their behavior. That's what someone did to me about twenty years back and it helped me get my ass in line. I'm hoping it'll do the same for a few of them. As the least, I know who to block if their response is just as nasty. My block list is long but my time here is much more peaceful!
My dog gets riled up when you give her a carrot as a treat. The kids aren't bouncing off the wall because candy gave them a bunch of energy, they are bouncing off the wall because they are excited about the treat they have received.
Sugar does give a little energy boost. And the rugrats will use the highly available energy
You’re just repeating something scientifically false. Eating sugar absolutely does NOT “give you an energy boost.” What a smug advertisement of the fact that you’ve never taken a biochemistry course AND are so unobservant that you haven’t noticed sugar consumption is, if anything, more likely to make you feel drowsy than “energy boosted.”
Fucking unbelievable. The smug wrongness of people blows my mind.
Let's talk this out. Not the biochemistry aspect, but the smuggery.
Was their post smug? Yes. Factually incorrect? Also yes - I'm a microbiologist, I took my share of biochem courses.
Your response was equally smug as well as condescending. Their comment was wrong but innocent in its intent. Yours, conversely, intended to disparage their comment and them as a person.
What do you intend to gain here? Not with the correction - that is valid, but it's entirely possible to correct without being smug, condescending, and denigrating. What do you think that adds to the conversation that a simple, polite correction would lack?
I realize the person I'm replying to has no interest in the truth, but in case others are interested, read the first paragraph here to get a sense of what a scientific theory is. The myth/misunderstanding is that a scientific theory is a theory in sense 3 here. Not only is it a myth, it's a very common and very dishonest way to dismiss evolution without having to address the fact that it's a proven fact.
I don't think you understood most of those things correctly.
The graphic says the circle size is based on Google search hits, not arbitrary.
Evolution is a scientific theory, which is different than the layman's idea of a "theory".
Bats are definitely not almost blind, like most nocturnal/crepuscular animals they have fairly good night vision.
It didn't say sugar doesn't cause energy spikes, it says excessive consumption during childhood doesn't contribute to hyperactive disorders.
Your knee-jerk reaction to this post is weird. It's okay that you didn't know some of these things. You don't have to try to tear it down because it made you feel dumb.
No that's exactly my point; a lot of these headlines are about as technically (in)correct as the myths they try to debunk; evolution is a theory in the scientific sense so it is a theory, sugar causes a energy spike which people tend to call hyperactivity, different bats see in different degrees and some of them rely so much on echolocation that they see much worse than humans which technically makes them medically blind.
All of these play very heavy on the literal definition of the words. This makes a lot of these “debunked myths” moreso pedantic wordplay than they they actually debunk anything.
I was also surprised about that one. Sugar, any carbs really, can cause a energy boost which could be called hyperactivity. Of course it doesn't cause a diagnosable disorder. The headline and description feel like the author is being pedantic about the meaning of the word “hyperactivity”. A lot of these read like the author is being pedantic about the literal meaning of a word.
A couple of these are interesting, but for my own sanity I have to refuse to accept most are commonly believed at all. Some are myths either way, like Satan ruling Hell or not isn't real so it's kind of a strange thing to include. I think the only one that really surprised me is the banana tree one, which is some interesting trivia but is so pedantic that if someone said that to me in person I'd just want to leave the room.
The banana argument is dumb, too, because there is no taxonomic definition of what a "tree" even is.
I've also commonly heard "Palm trees aren't actually trees, they're grass," which is correct from a taxonomic standpoint but ignores the fact that "tree" isn't an official classification of anything. It's simply a term applied to any tall plant with a woody trunk, which banana definitely counts among.
Mate, I’ll be honest with you here - I grow bananas on my property and I can definitely tell you the last term I’d use to describe their trunks is ‘woody’. They’re so moisture-laden and ultra porous that anyone who’s ever had to cut or cull banana will know for sure that they’re not made of wood. You can easily carve through a 15-20cm trunk of a banana plant with a sharp machete and one strong swing - try that on anything generally considered to be a tree and you’ll be lucky to get a fair chip out of the trunk.
I’ve got no skin in the game as to whether or not they’re trees, or what the fuck a ‘tree’ even is, but anyone who’s dealt with growing bananas is pretty unlikely to consider them in the same group as woody trees. Damn things grow like weeds anyway!
Fair, it's a loose definition of woody, but all wood really is is load-bearing cellulose.
But bamboo, for example, is completely hollow inside, very unlike normal wood, but we still consider it "woody" even though it's really just a reinforced piece of grass.
Like when people say that spiders aren't bugs. Bug isn't a scientific term, it's just slang for creepy-crawlies. They usually mean that spiders aren't insects.
First one that got me was the black hole. If I dig a hole in the ground, is that not really a hole? If I find a hole in your logic is that not a hole? If I model the flow of charge with positive 'holes' between electrons, are they not holes? And... do people really commonly think a 'black hole' is a traditional sort of hole? 'Hole' seems a perfectly reasonable name for what it really is.
Now what a black hole really is is fascinating stuff, but not in a "see, people are so ignorant to think it's a hole" kind of way.
Even worse, we don't know what black holes really are.
Is there a discontinuity in spacetime? Is the discontinuity point-like or spherical, or even toroidal? Do physics even exists within? Is "within a black hole" even a reasonable concept? We don't know! We're still arguing about wether black holes can delete information from existence.
My favourite black hole fact, coming from the character of the space-time tensor and how it changes, is that as you approach a black hole, time goes sideways.
I don't think my lecturer put it quite that way, but he showed that as you get close, the time dimension comes to look like a space dimension in the tensor, and the space dimension that points into the black hole, looks like a time dimension!
