fact or myth..biology related statements

Question answered by honorarykid in Scientology

quita_03 asked this question on 9/27/2000:

can you please tell me which of the following are facts, and which of the following are myhts, and please explain why?

1. if birds stored energy as carbohydrates instead of fat, they would weigh so much they couldn't fly. fact or fiction....why?

2. the hydra, an organism the size of a pencil, has fewer chromosomes than an aligator. fact or fiction....why?

3. celery has zero calories. fact or fiction....why?

4. bacteria reproduces so rapidly that the number of bacteria produced in just two days surpasses the number of human ever lived. fact or fiction....why?

5. spider silk is stringer than steel. fact or fiction....why?

6. there are more cells in you body than there are stars in the Milky Way.

7. muscles get sore during exercise because they overheat. fact or fiction....why?

honorarykid gave this response on 9/28/2000:

These questions are not topical to the subject of this forum, Scientology.

The only facet of your questions which even remotely ties to the subject matter, is the tacit implication that people are routinely believing in things which they believe to be scientifically "proven" facts, even if those things aren't true.

I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to assume they are completely free from believing in a scientific fallacy or two. There is simply too much information out there to stay 100% accurately informed.

At the same time, our modern culture (which, in spite of it's flaws, generally serves our individual biological needs quite well) has well established institutions dedicated to pumping out misleading claims, which carelessly promote bad science, and which both accidentally and intentionally promote scientific misunderstanding. At the same time, our own psychological neediness for explanations for things about which science can offer no explanation, makes us grasp for any and all explanations, even irrational ones. When we need, we become less critical, and more credulous when it comes to evaluating false claims.

But on the other hand, neither can it be argued that all types of fallacious beliefs about scientific claims carry equal risks.

For example, you asked the question about the number of calories in celery.

I have heard it said, from many different people that it actually consumes more calories to eat and digest a piece of celery than the celery contains. I don't know if that's actually a true statement. And I don't really care. If I believed this, and it was false, that would not change the fact that celery is very low in calories, has good fiber for my lower GI, and can be safely consumed whether I'm dieting or not.

But, on the other hand, if I began claiming that celery was a miracle diet food, and if I started a cult for overweight people around the consumption of celery, and if I said the members of my cult could eat nothing else but celery, and if I said they also had to give me all their money, and could never criticize me, and if they did all this, they would be forever happy, thin and fulfilled, it's a slam dunk that believing these false claims carries far greater risks and dangers than the earlier, milder form of celery delusion.

I think the main thing is to inculcate an appreciation for the scientific method, to help our children to grow up with skills to recognize when self-serving interests are behind certain claims.

In owning this set of skills, we make it harder for charlatans and advertisers and hucksters to fool us, and in so doing, we discourage many of them from unethical attempts.

We should, if we value the truth, never become so dogmatic as to believe we know everything. We should always be willing to accept new evidence, even if that runs counter to what we currently believe.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.