Science Misconceptions

Folk science and actual science differ considerably in many cases. While they may not have much bearing on every day life, these misconceptions are still troubling and should be corrected by science communicators and educators. While the list is nearly endless, here are just a few science misconceptions.

The Species Problem and Micro/Macro Evolution

While it's easy to discuss extinctions of lineages, there is something called "the species problem" which makes it very difficult to talk about the emergence and extinction of a given species, and really most taxons. People often think of the concept of "species" as a clear cut issue. Something either is of a certain species or it isn't. But unfortunately there's never been a solid definition of "species" that satisfies scientific rigor. Instead, whether something is or is not of the same species is just something biologists reference to give a general idea of what population they're talking about.

The misconception of the rigidity of species and speciation - the formation of a new species - also leads to a misunderstanding of evolution. A lot of discussions of evolution vs creationism center around the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Those who argue for creationism often say that they believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. In other words, they believe that organisms change over time but that speciation doesn't occur. A common response is that macroevolution is just evolution over longer timescales. Neither group is correct, because there is no valid distinction between species, and so no valid concept of speciation. There is no microevolution or macroevolution. There is only evolution.

The Caveman

While species may not be a strict biological term, humans, as we think of ourselves, emerged roughly 200,000–250,000 years ago. We've certainly changed in some ways since then, but a lot hasn't changed. And one thing that hasn't changed is our desire to live in caves, because that never happened.

While it makes for an interesting GEICO commercial, humans lived on the African savanna, not in caves. As they spread out, they lived in numerous locations, sometimes taking shelter around under-croppings, but again, people did not in general live in caves. Honestly, caves aren't great places to live. They're dark and damp, for the most part.

These humans also weren't any less intelligent than modern humans. There have been subtle evolutionary changes over the last 100,000 years or so of human existence, but by all accounts, someone who was born 150,000 years ago who was brought to the modern era as a young child - were it possible to do so - would grow up without any issue in modern society.

Our earlier ancestors didn't live in caves either, so one might wonder how the idea of the caveman began. While caves aren't great places to live, they make for interesting rites of passage, so early humans spent a lot of time drawing in caves. And it's in caves that anthropologists found a lot of cultural material from our ancestors. This observation led to the brief view, by some anthropologists, that humans spent considerable parts of their lives in those caves.

Dinosaur Extinction

Ever wonder what dinosaur tastes like? Well, you've probably eaten one or two. In fact, I had dinosaur soup the other night. Dinosaurs never became extinct. While it's true that a lot of dinosaurs have perished, and there's a lot of debate as to why, some did survive and they continued to evolve.

Birds are dinosaurs. Specifically, birds are a specific group of dinosaurs, within the theropod group. The tyranosaurs, such as the T. rex, also belong to this group, as do many other dinosaurs.

There's a lot of fossil information and morphological information, which has led scientists to this conclusion. Indeed, early bird like dinosaurs - specifically the archaeopteryx - are what helped justify Darwin's theory of evolution. These early birds had a lot of features in common with both dinosaurs as we know them and modern birds. Indeed, many dinosaurs are now known to have had feathers, and the media is finally giving realistic reconstructions of dinosaurs more attention.

Debate note: Because feathers do not fossilize easily, there is some contention about the question of feathers for certain dinosaurs, including the T. rex.

Flat Earth

I'm not referring to the modern flat Earth movement. This one is more of a history misconception rather than a science misconception. The Earth isn't flat. Sadly there are a lot of people out there who somehow believe that it is.

And perhaps more people believe it today than did in the past. Historically, people rarely believed that the Earth was flat. From the time of ancient Greece, people had a pretty good idea that the Earth was round. Large scale building projects often relied on an understanding of the Earth's curvature.

So if so many people already knew that the Earth wasn't flat, why did Columbus try to prove that it was round? He didn't! Columbus wanted to prove that the Earth was a certain size and that he could sail around it. He was dead wrong. Had America not been in his way, he and his crew would have died on the open ocean!

Dimensions

You can't move to another dimension. I blame science fiction writers for this issue. While scifi often uses a lot of pseudoscience and techobabble to move the plot forward, the bastardized use of "dimension" has made its way into common usage. A dimension is simply a physical quantity that can be measured.

Usually when we refer to dimensions, we mean spatial or temporal dimensions. Space-time has a certain number of these dimensions. But they're not places. They're descriptions of the shape and structure of space-time itself. We move along spatial and temporal dimensions. An elevator moves along a dimension that's perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. But we don't move from height to length.

We move along an object's height or length. But we don't move from "height" to "length." So we can move along a dimension, and we can assign a value for a given dimension, but we cannot move between dimensions, because dimensionality is a property that something has, not a place.

Quantum Reality

There's a lot of interesting science fiction involving quantum mechanics, and to be honest, QM is fairly complicated, and it necessarily in line with how we normally think the universe functions.

The observer misconception is a major cause of misunderstandings surrounding quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, the state that a system ends up taking is dependent on the observer. Until observed, quantum states do not collapse. Moreover, for different observers, the collapse to an outcome can be different, so that different observers experience different realities.

For this reason, people sometimes believe that a consciousness must always exist, and that a consciousness cannot die because it would violate quantum mechanics. However, "observer" does not mean a conscious observer. It is essentially anything that can take a measurement of, or otherwise interact with, a quantum state. For instance, a proton can be the "observer" of an election.

Myth

Another topic that I want to address is the view of myths, and especially the lay usage of the term. I'll admit that I'll abuse the term once in a while, when writing a headline at least. A myth, at least as far as anthropology and related fields are concerned, is not a false statement. In scientific terms, myth has nothing to do with whether the thought is true or not. A myth is a narrative, or story, which helps to explain our current situation. Creation myths are an example. But history is also myth.

Philosophy of Science

Here's the final thought on science misconceptions, and one that I really want to drive home. Plenty of scientists have argued that philosophy is useless, at least to the scientist. Richard Feynman has been quoted as saying "philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." But philosophy isn't meaningless to science. There is no science without philosophy. First and foremost, philosophy is the practice of questioning what we think we know. Science is actually a form of philosophy.

Moreover, philosophy of science is the study of how science functions, and what it can and cannot do. It helps inform us of what science actually is. For instance, people might think that science is all about lab work or gathering data. While empirical observations are crucial to testing theory, it is theory testing that is the bread and butter of science. The whole goal of science is to try to take data that we've systematically collected, and use it to potentially find out that what we think we know is wrong.

Finally, to go back to Feynman's quote - if we are to try to construct any analogy at all - then drawing from our high school SAT preparations, philosophy of science is to scientists, as anthropology is to humans. Sure, birds may not know much about ornithology, but humans have certainly benefited from anthropology.

Improving Understanding

These misconceptions may seem minor, and in some ways they're pet peeves of mine, but it's important to have a clear understanding of the history and nature of science. These few examples are just the tip of the iceberg however. It's always important to promote further desire to study the history and philosophy of science.

Originally published on Medium