Things everybody should know but for some reason, most don't.
- Thread starter Kolby Jack
- Start date
Yes that is true but I look at Chiropractor's the same way I look at dentist's, they just specialize.dobahci said:
You should probably realize that you are using wiktionary for your definition before you go any further. Regardless, this definition specifically includes that a cult exists on the margins of society, which in no way describes Christianity.nathan-dts said:
.
Okay, here's one...
Given that this thread is dedicated to pointing out that there are things that people don't know or get wrong all the time, I think it's safe to say the following statement:
Wikipedia is not to be considered an accurate database of information.
By the logic of this thread alone, you demonstrate that people have very strong biases, make very large mistakes, and are very lax in doing anything about these things. Ergo, the website which allows EVERYBODY to edit it is unreliable, even if you claim that it is moderated carefully by the people that own it, because they are also only human and ARE biased. True, there are bouts of information that are correct, but not all of it. Wiki is better used as a nexus by which to find the REAL information. It in of itself is not trustworthy.
Given that this thread is dedicated to pointing out that there are things that people don't know or get wrong all the time, I think it's safe to say the following statement:
Wikipedia is not to be considered an accurate database of information.
By the logic of this thread alone, you demonstrate that people have very strong biases, make very large mistakes, and are very lax in doing anything about these things. Ergo, the website which allows EVERYBODY to edit it is unreliable, even if you claim that it is moderated carefully by the people that own it, because they are also only human and ARE biased. True, there are bouts of information that are correct, but not all of it. Wiki is better used as a nexus by which to find the REAL information. It in of itself is not trustworthy.
Damn, Someone beat me to it. I've personally memorized 3.141592654(rounding up to 4).brandon237 said:Ahem...Kermi said:
[HEADING=3]WRONG![/HEADING]
Pi is not a rational number, it never terminates and does not repeat. All rational numbers can be shown in the form x = a/b, Pi, not being rational, cannot be accurately represented by 22/7 as this totally goes against what Pi is, an irrational number.
You can say that Pi is approximately 22/7, although it is as easy to remember 3,14.
Sorry. That may have been a little harsh
OT: Everyone should know that Chernobyl was not a good example of normal nuclear-fission power-generation and that "theory" in English does NOT mean the same, or even a similar thing, to what theory means in science.
Discussing religion or politics in a large group of people is almost guaranteed to lead to bad feeling. Do not do it! If you want to discuss it, ensure that the people you are talking to are able to entertain an idea, while disagreeing civilly.
THAT is debate. Anything else is just two people validating their own convictions. Loudly.
THAT is debate. Anything else is just two people validating their own convictions. Loudly.
also iTunes may not be used in the development of WMD,sNouw said:
that the earth isn't flat.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ (yes people believe this stuff)
I get that in religious doctrine that people believe the earth is just 6000 years old or that you reject the theory of evolution but Marco Polo proved the earth was round by sailing around it.
people believe that alternative medicine works and reject life saving treatments over it.
if people stuck to traditional western medicine instead of magic water or hand waving allot of people might have been saved suffering also Steve Jobs would have been alive today.
It takes just as much strength to bite through your finger as it takes to bite through a carrot but our brains stop us from doing it.
bet you didnt know that
bet you didnt know that
Good logic, good statement.FalloutJack said:
Buuuuut you could argue that any book/article/etc is worse, because it has lesser editors and therefore more potential bias in the final product (because the bias of all the people involved is less likely to even itself out). Therefore wikipedia might not be the holy grail of accuracy (there is no such thing), but it might be our best shot for now.
EDIT: also books and articles can't be fixed once released. There's so much unfixable shit flying around in the literature world, you can't believe it.
That might be so (or, it might not), but I seem to recall an Aesop-ism about too many cooks spoiling the soup. Granted, you can take anything with a grain of salt and even construct - via philosophical musings - a thesis by which information and reality and your perceptions of it are all backwards...but then we could at least say you're approaching the whole information thing intelligently.Rainforce said:
Wikipedia is, on the other hand, very lazy and able to be frauded in seconds with the right line of code. Information could be maliciously altered or destroyed if one is of a mind and talent to do so. Very unreliable. At least with books, you know that the last regime that decided to eschew knowledge by burning books didn't pan out too well.
The US budget can't afford to sustain it's Imperialist occupation of foreign soil!omicron1 said:
Sorry my bad, that was a typo (I tend to do that often and yes I should double check more often).Grog289 said:
that there are 52 weeks in a year
in maths today we had to calculate how much someone would earn based on a set amout per week, when the time came to x52 most of the other students in the class thought it was 50 or 40
this is a year 11 maths class BTW
in maths today we had to calculate how much someone would earn based on a set amout per week, when the time came to x52 most of the other students in the class thought it was 50 or 40
this is a year 11 maths class BTW