4 “Facts” That Have Changed Since You Were In School

First they blew your mind when they told you Pluto isn’t actually a planet, then they told you that not only is Atlantis real, it’s been sitting in the bottom of some mudflats in Spain for a few thousand years. It seems history and science keep changing right in front of our eyes and pretty soon, nothing we learned in school will be true any more. Well, if you can’t deal with change, then you aren’t going to like these four things you learned in school are actually completely bogus.

The Pyramids Weren’t Built By Slaves

If you learned one thing about Egypt in school, it was that the pyramids are marvels of ancient technology…and that they were built by slaves. There are movies based around slaves working on the pyramids and every one has seen at least half a dozen pictures of the poor workers straining under the hot sun as their cruel masters wait, whip in hand, for someone to slack off. But working on the pyramids might not have been so bad after all. While it was still hard work to construct the massive monuments, recent research has shown that the workers were more likely skilled masons who had the right to leave whenever they wanted. Evidence to back this claim is supported in the fact that the workers had their own tombs right beside the pyramids. Egyptologists point out that someone that low on the social ladder would never have been buried so close to the pharaohs. Image via anniemarieangelo [Flickr]

Everything You Knew About Dinosaurs Is Wrong

Ok, maybe not everything you learned about dinos back in school was wrong, but a lot of it sure was. For one thing, there is no brontosaurus. Yeah, that giant lumbering monster we all learned about in grade school was actually an apatosaurus with the head of a camarasaurus. The worst thing about this inaccuracy is that it was discovered over a century ago, but up until recently, everyone (including a lot of elementary school teachers) still insisted on calling apatosauruses brontosauruses. I guess one mislabeled dino isn’t that big of a deal…but the incorrect visual representation of just about every dinosaur imaginable is. By now, you’ve probably heard that many dinosaurs probably had feathers, a huge change for those of us who grew up thinking about giant lizards roaming the prehistoric plains. But even those that probably didn’t look like giant birds still looked way cooler and more versatile than the oversized iguanas popularly imagined. These days, we even know what color some dinosaurs were, and they are a far call from the multitude of green shades we once imagined. If you really want to know just how different dinosaurs were compared to what we were taught, check out this great article on Listverse, about the Top 10 Dinosaurs That Aren’t What They Were. Image via Geoff S. [Flickr]

Arsenic Is One of the Building Blocks of Life

If you learned chemistry or biology in high school, you were probably taught that there are six chemical elements known as the “building blocks of life.” They are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus.  These components make up the chemical composition of DNA and without them, life isn’t possible…or at least, we thought it wasn’t possible. Last year, scientists discovered a bacteria species living in a salt lake in California that was missing one of the building blocks of life, phosphorus, and instead had arsenic in its place. For some people, this might not seem like such a huge deal, particularly considering that arsenic is very close to phosphorus in its physical and chemical properties, but it’s a huge deal to scientists who suddenly saw a massive expansion in the scope of potential living things. It really makes a difference in intergalactic research, since the discovery opens up whole new planets as potential life-supporting ecosystems. Image via Artful Magpie [Flickr]

Humans Aren’t Really All That Special

Maybe this wasn’t the case for all of you, but when I was in school, the teachers seemed overly fascinated with telling us how much better humans are than other animals. They’d tell the class, “we’re the only animals who have complex emotions,” “no other animal is self-aware like we are,” “humans are the only creatures who use tools,” “we are the only species to communicate through complex language,” etc. I don’t know why they felt our fragile homo sapien egos were so threatened by other creatures, but I always thought that was a little strange. As it turns out, it was completely incorrect too. Recent studies show that elephants mourn the loss of their companions and many animals, particularly dogs (who have evolved in the companionship of humans), have far more complex emotions than scientists had ever imagined. And chimps don’t just have emotions; they also are self-aware enough to understand how their own actions will affect those around them. Well, we still have our intelligence to set us apart from the beasts right? Not so quick you homo sapien- supremacists. Actually, there are a lot of intelligent animals out there, many of which use tools and converse amongst themselves. Chimps have used spears to hunt for thousands of years, octopuses use coconut shells as both camouflage and as protection, and dolphins use sponges to help uncover fish that are hiding in the sand. As for language, bees have an incredibly complex language system allowing them to communicate what type of flower is located in a given place and how to get to that location. Monkeys not only communicate with one another vocally, but they even understand grammar rules. In fact, in some ways, animals are actually ahead of us in the language game. While humans cannot yet speak the language of any other animals, primates can be taught sign language so they can communicate with us in our own language. Image via Mundoo [Flickr] If this crushed your memories of grade school, I’m sorry, but now it’s your turn to get revenge. What have you learned isn’t true even though they told you it was a “fact” back in school?


New Caledonian Crows use tools as well, and are the only non-human species to modify existing tools into new ones. Scientists even say they're better at tool making and use than chimps!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0423_030423_crowtools.html
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The jury is still very much out on arsenic based life. It's not a "huge deal" at all to the vast majority of scientists as the study that claimed arsenic can be incorporated in DNA was simplistic and flawed. Most molecular biologists (including myself) don't believe the finding at all. Many prominent scientists have publicly attacked the study, and rightfully so. Shame that it is now making it's way unfiltered into the mainstream.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I pretty sure for every Skilled Mason that got a tomb for the Pyramids he had many workers beneath him for the heavy hands on work.

Maybe not slaves, but low paid, unskilled labor that would be considered slaves by today's standards.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Not only as Mike M mentioned, did the arsenic-based life research turn out to be flawed and unreliable:
http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/

...but there is absolutely no evidence that what those researchers claim is Atlantis is indeed Atlantis. How many times has Atlantis been "found" now? Plato's description of Atlantis is widely believed to be a metaphor, and contrary to what those researchers are claiming he never gave a "detailed account" of where it was located, although he did describe it as a "continent" that was "larger than Libya and Asia together", which certainly doesn't fit the description of what these researchers found.

So next time you go on a fact-correcting mission, please actually check those facts first!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The "slaves didn't build the pyramids" bit is also a highly debatable point.

There is a certain political agenda for Egypt if they proclaim that slaves didn't build the pyramids. The descendants of those slaves happen to control a country next door that Egypt doesn't like very much.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I distinctly remember reading in 7th grade science class that the idea of salt intake possibly affecting blood pressure was an old wives' tale. Guess those old wives knew something after all.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
As for the Egyptian workforce...way I heard it, people couldn't work their fields during the 4-month inundation period, so you had a hell of lot of subjects with time to kill until the Nile went down again. You're a god-king, why not use them? And we have written records of pyramid workers staging sit-down strikes until their proper rations were delivered, which is not the behavior I'd associate with slaves (at least the ones that survive).
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I totally agree with Mike M. above. I'm a microbiologist and the evidence for the arsenic-based life is VERY shaky. I'd pull that from your list of four for the time being. Once other labs get GFAJ-1 and start testing it independently, then maybe we can have a more informed discussion about it. Right now, the only published report about arsenic-based life is by people who weren't really that diligent in their experiments.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@algomeysa - it certainly wasn't the Nubians who built the pyramids either. The slaves would have most likely been Egyptian subjects. Also, many tombs are found with worker figurines (shawabti) who are being watched by an overseer, generally meant to be either the person interred or a subordinate of his. Thousands would have been required to build the pyramids (and the temples, and the palaces), and certainly not all of them could have been master masons.

As for humans "not being that special": find a species that combines all of the traits listed - language, emotions, self-consciousness, tool-making - besides us. Yeah, crows and chimps ain't got it.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Whether or not humans or other animals are self-aware is a difficult question to answer that cannot easily be resolved by pointing to mourning elephants. It's just not that simple. Have you heard of the philosopher's zombie? How about sleep-walking? Or any other automatic behavior that resembles a consciously willed act but wherein the person's phenomenal (mental) self does not exist. To answer the question are and in what way are humans self-aware as distinct from other species we need to wrap our heads around a lot.

Egyptians worshipped the infinite God of which I routinely speak under many names including; Isis, Horus, Ra, Aten, Amun, Amun-Horus-Ra (amalgamated) and so forth. Such a society were it truly devoted to God would look quite unusual to modern eyes. It may even appear like, some insane thought, those "slaves" weren't actually volunteers. Simply because nobody in their "right mind" according to our sensibilities would do that to themselves.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Another popular thought experiment is if we could program a computer to mourn the loss of some of its data would that mean the computer is self-aware in the phenomenal sense?

Phenomenality is really the crux of the problem, virtually all behavior can be reproduced unconsciously. One rather telling fact is that by and large chimps and dolphins don't descend into abyssmal states of existentialist angst or suffer any imminent need to figure things out. They rarely commit suicide and have never composed any of the great works of Shakespeare. Though they show some rudimentary signs of a self-aware creature they show virtually no signs of a creature that is aware that it is self-aware which is characteristic of the endlessly self-reflective process we generally are. Such that we can reflect upon our reflecting upon and so on ad infinitum. The chimp or dolphin seem to be primarily concerned with self solely as it relates to others within their group. There is no record of chimps wandering off in solitude to contemplate their own existence and resolve the existentialist dilemmas borne out of this kind of reflective self-awareness. Thus it is reasonable to postulate that whatever self-awareness chimps and dolphins have, it's not what we are referring to when we say humans are the only self-conscious creature.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Oh darn, too many > s for emphasis, silly me; html fail.
What I was TRYing to say was:

YES, HUMANS > >ARE< < THAT GODDANG SPECIAL!!!

MY MOM SAYS I AM SPECIAL!! --SO > >THERE< < !!!

NO CROW COULD SCREW UP HTML THAT BAD! -SEEE?!! -- > >SPESHUL< < !!!!
::ptui::

:P
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Darwin's theory of evolution is just that...A THEORY! There is not one aspect of it that has ever been proved true. In fact it contradicts the laws of physics. Also, evolutionists talk of survival of the fittest, then go to great lengths to protect various species from extinction. Kind of like defeating your own favorite theory, isn't it?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Oh boy, here we go. There's a difference between theory, in common usage and a SCIENTIFIC Theory. Gravity is just a theory, would you like to go jump off a cliff? Since it's just a theory and all.

And I believe you're talking about the misconception that evolution is against the laws of thermodynamics, NOT physics. Specifically, the law that says closed systems tend toward chaos, not order, so since the earth is thought by some to be a closed system, it should become less ordered over time. Right? Only it's NOT a closed system. We get energy from the sun. So that law doesn't apply.

And there's a difference in believing in evolution and thinking that humans should be the only animals on the earth. Which is what would eventually happen if we weren't mindful of our impact on nature.

Really, get your facts straight. You only make yourself look stupid.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@ VM: Old Wives are especially brilliant. It's really to the point where I'd 2x check the study if the study actually contradicted them... or 2x checked whether or not the Tale gave the Old Wives some benefit.

@ Molecular Biologists: there are a couple here and since we're on the subject of stuff that changed from when we were in school, I had a friend mention to me that the number of kingdoms should/would change from 5 to 3. Any validity to this?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Manticore

It's still just a theory. It still has to have Popper's falsifiability criteria which makes it only tentatively true witht he prospect of being disproven. This is more true the more abstract and purely mathematical the theory is. You could develop a system of symbols that provides for an internally consistent theory which does not accord with any experience and that would 'just be a theory'. Gravity has plenty of verifiable evidence. The theory of gravity, is just a theory accounting for what we observe as "gravity". I can disbelieve in the theory but still accept the reality of the empirical fact.

Likewise, I can disbelieve evolution if I have another theory which explains the same facts or just because I feel like it. Personally, I think evolution is fairly accurate within the realm of relative conceptualization and perception, but with respect to the unbroken ground of all being, it is a mere artefact and cannot explain everything. Scientists focus on broken down objects and events and attempt to theorize from the point-of-view of a fractured and fragmented event. Whereas, religions tend to deal with the world as it is in unity, unbroken, as a stream flowing and not as individual water droplets bouncing off each other. Both perspectives have their merits, but either without the other is pure delusion.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Not saying evolution is bulletproof, or even that it's as bulletproof as gravity, but I'm tired of people looking up "theory" in their 40 year old dictionary and thinking that alone discounts the entire body of evidence backing it up.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
On the topic of theories - scientific vs. common usage, I'd like to point out that in both cases, religion is just theory, as there is no proof, scientific or otherwise, that God exists. And since many (and I'm not necessarily saying this about you, Kevin George, as I have no idea what you think) people chose to believe "Intelligent" Design over evolution, citing evolution as only being a 'theory,' I'd like to point out, using said thought process, that there is zero proof that ID makes sense, since God is theoretical.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Petra

I would like to point out that "scientific vs. common usage" is a potentially fallacious dichotomy. I think theory is used in much the same way, colloquial theories are tentatively based in evidence and are subject to such revision. But scientific theories tend to be more rigidly held.

I would like to outline a definition of God which cannot be refuted and therefor must be true and neither can it be verified by observation or scientific inquiry. That definition is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Rather than postulate all kinds of lesser 'things' that might be transcended by an elusive God-concept, I'd sooner point to the moment of undifferentiation in our conscious processing. Every thing we can conceive of has a boundary, is bounded if not in space and time, then at least in quality. Every quality we conceive of, in-fact, everything we can possibly imagine is bounded as such. I cannot generate a thought that is not defined and therefor differentiated from the totality. Even the concept of totality is a mere reflection of the concept of finitude, and I could not conceive of a totality without also conceiving of its parts. So the God I wish to point to, is not a concept, nor a percept, but actually transcends all concepts and percepts and all finitude. Such a God is not this and not that, nor is it anything else you can think of. And this is solely based in recognition of the relativistic nature of thought, we cannot conceive of such a being, not even the brightest or wisest among us. All thought and verbal expression is relative, all scientific inquiry is relative, all physical matter is relative, God is the one absolute.

So such a God - to recognize it - requires you to do some meditative work and figure out what lies beyond relative thought and conception. Any exertion of effort in this regard is like a descent into relativity, so the masters direct us to let go of our concepts and percepts, because no formulation thereof can bring us toward God. It is rather in the dissillusionment of concepts and percepts the unbroken ground of all being becomes noticable. But only as through a glass-darkly, because all subsequent conceptualization reduces the infinitude of God to the finititude of verbal and conceptual expression and thought.

With this in mind, it is quite possible that evolution is also true as there is no real conflict between an infinite God of this sort and physical phenomena, the physical phenomena belongs to the realm of relativity, of conceptual thought, and so must remain internally consistent. There must be a constant chain of causes and effects stretching back and forth indefinitely and with cold logical rigidity. This is a requirement of the conscious mind dwelling in relativity, but it is not the nature of reality. Reality itself is non-dual, absolute and neither this thing or that. And when we conceive of God as the absolute, unbroken ground of all being, we must be referring to this undifferentiated totality which cannot be expressed with the use of finite concepts and language.

Such a God is not theoretical, but is undeniable, and equates to that which is draw to mind in reflecting on reality as a whole without "breaking it down".
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
So, this God I mention is no more than everything in existence, and everything that is in existence is no less than God. The Egyptian Great Hymn to the Aten by Amenhotep IV (c 1440 B.C.) says it this way: Thou bringest forth as thou desirest
To maintain the people (of Egypt)
According as thou madest them for thyself,
The lord of all of them, wearying (himself) with them,

It would be a bit better if the last line had read "The lord of all of them, wearing himself with them". It would be put by Shakespeare this way: "All the world's a stage
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts."

For the Bible's part it spends a long time getting to this realization because the average human mind just can't comprehend it and "moves within a sphere of worldly interests" [to quote Buddha]. The Bible tries to represent the "sphere of worldly interests" by the flesh or sinful nature.

So, not to be too critical, I think its entirely possible that it is actually the other way around, that religious people actually have some extremely profound insight into reality that scientists can never find in a microscope. They aren't looking inward to find the source, they are looking outward and there is reason that doesn't work for finding God, the reason is our minds rend the whole of God into discrete parts and then we look at those parts and try to determine something from the parts. We don't see the whole which is God.

So the Bible says "There is but one God and no other beside him" and from this God is said to be omnipresent. Now, if God is omnipresent and if there is no other beside him, then neither you nor I are apart from or beside God, but must necessarily be God in some aspect, and that is to say that we are actually just aspects of God, or personas, images, reflections, appearances, dust in the wind, here to play a part in God's plan. Which plan somewhat amounts to "life" or "existence" or "actuality". So it is as if God created us so as to experience himself through us. Because were God not differentiated into the finite form of a human being with a fragmented relativistic consciousness, he could never actually become aware of himself, as I said; the totality is relative to finitiude, it is through the bounded-thingness of the world that the totality, and thereupon God becomes known to us. But only through understanding our relativistic consicous life. Otherwise we are apt to find the most value in some particular finite thing, like a car, a job or a spouse. So they say, we are made for God and our highest duty is to direct our awe and appreciation toward God, but because we cannot know God without first knowing finite things, we tend to direct our awe and appreciation towards those things and consequently ignore God. This is quite literally the old teachings of religion, within which the claim "God cannot be scientifically proven" is both 100% true and completely false if its intended to refute God. Because in this way God transcends all scientific inquiry.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
At risk of sounding arrogant, pretentious and everything else, I feel compelled to add that the formulation of scientific inquiry largely began with religiously minded people like Newton and Ibn al-Haytham. Not too many people are familiar with al-Haytham, one of many great muslim scholars who helped found the scientific enterprise and who assisted in the formulation of many of its formal guidelines. al-Haytham was also the first person to draw an accurate diagram of the human optical system. For al-Haytham, Newton and many others of their time science was explicitly for the express purpose of studying the "works of God" and admitted of no possible means of studying God.

However, in modern times people are of the indefensible belief that God is an object of some sort that can be collectively studied in a laboratory. It is not just reductionist-materialist types that think of God as a finite object, but most Christians do too! That is why there is such an apparently conflict, because Christianity has descended from enlightenment into idol worship. Idols which are objects capable of being scientifically refuted, and so science and religion appear to be at odds, but it never used to be this way. It is only because "God" has fallen from heaven and become a Man that there is any conflict at all. In 'his' infinite formlessness there is nothing to study or compare God to, but in the God-as-Man formula commonly worshipped today, all of that is possible, and God is frequently compared to human beings with all kinds of contradictions and conceptual problems. This is not what St. Anselm imagined when he said "God is that than which nothing greater can be thought" which is called today "The Ontological Argument". While the argument still stands as a great proof of God as infinite formless being, it is so often used in an attempt to prove the God-man idol of modern Christianity and that is just absurd. If a man is the greatest thought these people can have it says a lot about our current society.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Ryan, interesting and well expressed. Thank you!

It's refreshing to see a discussion of the sort in this thread that doesn't break down to, "Your god sucks." "Yeah, well, your science sucks." "Does not!" "Does too!"
ad infinitum, ad nauseum, Godwin, blah blah blah.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 30 comments




Email This Post to a Friend
"4 “Facts” That Have Changed Since You Were In School"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More