I have just read a fascinating article examining one urban lergend, and the way it developed, and how its growth follows a typical pattern for such myths. http://snurl.com/27p6

a great article, Max. now I just have to figure out under which bookmark folder to file it...

imho, the reason for the persistence of this type of story ist their usefulness as "contrast foils" (complete with "authoritative source") for people who want to put forward an opposing argument. I could even imagine there being a word for this rhetorical ploy...?

wsieber, I'm sure you're right about this specific type of urban legend. The desire to have a "contrast foil" for an opposing viewpoint is likely to be a large part of the reason why this particular subset of urban myths survive and flourish. Another example is the Bill Gates "No one will ever need 640K of RAM" - now acknowledged as almost certainly apocryphal, but still a favourite of M$-bashers everywhere.

I used to hear a related one quite frequently many years ago. Supposedly "scientists" had proven that it was impossible for bees to fly. I don't recall where I read the debunking of this or what the specifics were, but it went something along the lines that someone had done a mathematical analysis of whether bees had rigid wings. The analysis, assuming the wings were rigid, proved that bees could not fly. However the conclusion was not that bees can't fly, but that their wings aren't rigid.

I think the SA comments about Gates were particularly stupid, however. Whenever I see someone making stupid comments like when they encounter someone who has made a mistake, I always think, "What political/religious axe does this bozo have to grind?"

Anyway, there's a new urban legend making the rounds since 9/11 about the Pentagon damage being caused by a missile. At first I thought it was a joke or that maybe these people were just trying to be rabble rousers. I'm pretty sure that at least some of them actually believe it.

k