關(guān)于人體的這6個(gè)“事實(shí)”其實(shí)是偽科學(xué)
誤解一：你的指紋是獨(dú)一無二的
For more than a century, fingerprints have played a major role in forensic investigations. It all started with Scottish scientist and physician Henry Faulds who, in 1888, wrote an article asserting that each person has a wholly unique set of fingerprints.
一個(gè)多世紀(jì)以來，指紋一直在法醫(yī)鑒定中發(fā)揮著巨大的作用。指紋說源起于蘇格蘭科學(xué)家和醫(yī)生亨利•福爾茲1888年寫的一篇論文，論文中聲稱每個(gè)人都有獨(dú)一無二的指紋。
Now, a single print in the wrong place can be enough for a criminal conviction. However, we have no way to conclusively prove that each of our collections of whorls, loops, and arches is unique (short of gathering the prints of every person who ever lived and comparing them).
現(xiàn)在，在錯(cuò)誤的地方留下一個(gè)指紋就足以定罪。但是，我們還無法最終證明我們所收集到的各種指紋(斗型紋、箕型紋、弓型紋)都是獨(dú)一無二的，更不用說收集和比較那些已經(jīng)過世的人的指紋了。
"It's impossible to prove that no two are the same," Mike Silverman, a forensic science regulator in the United Kingdom, told The Telegraph. "It's improbable, but so is winning the lottery, and people do that every week."
“沒有兩個(gè)指紋完全一樣，這事沒法證明，”英國法醫(yī)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)官員邁克•西爾弗曼告訴《每日電訊報(bào)》說，“基本不可能，但就和買彩票一樣，盡管知道幾乎沒可能中獎(jiǎng)，但還有人每周都買彩票。”
There can be serious consequences if most people believe that fingerprint analysis is infallible. In 2005, Simon Cole, a criminologist at the University of California at Irvine, published a study detailing the 22 known cases of fingerprint mistakes in the history of the American legal system.
如果多數(shù)人都相信指紋鑒定絕對(duì)不會(huì)出錯(cuò)，可能會(huì)帶來嚴(yán)重的后果。2005年，美國加州大學(xué)歐文分校的刑事學(xué)家西蒙•科爾發(fā)布了一項(xiàng)研究報(bào)告，列出了美國司法制度建立以來已知的22個(gè)指紋鑒定導(dǎo)致的錯(cuò)誤。
He stressed the need to address this misconception lest more innocent people find themselves accused, or even convicted, of crimes they did not commit.
他強(qiáng)調(diào)了破除這一誤解的必要性，以免更多無辜的人因?yàn)橹讣y被控告，甚至定罪。
Myth 2: Rolling your tongue is a genetic trait
誤解二：會(huì)卷舌頭是基因決定的
In 1940, geneticist Alfred Sturtevant published a paper claiming that genetics determined your ability to roll your tongue - parents who could roll their tongues were likely to have children who could as well.
1940年，遺傳學(xué)家阿爾弗雷德•斯特蒂文特發(fā)表了一篇論文，聲稱基因決定了你能否卷舌頭——能卷舌頭的父母會(huì)生出能卷舌頭的子女。
Just 12 years later, geneticist Philip Matlock disproved this finding with a study of his own. When he compared 33 sets of identical twins, he found that seven of those pairs contained one twin that could roll his or her tongue but the other couldn't.
才過了12年，基因?qū)W家菲利普•馬特洛克就用自己的研究推翻了這一發(fā)現(xiàn)。馬特洛克比較33對(duì)同卵雙胞胎后發(fā)現(xiàn)，其中有7對(duì)雙胞胎一個(gè)會(huì)卷舌頭，另一個(gè)不會(huì)。
Since the genes of identical twins are the same, genes clearly weren't the deciding factor for tongue rolling. Still, the misconception persists 65 years after Matlock published his debunking study.
既然同卵雙胞胎的基因是相同的，基因顯然不是能否卷舌頭的決定因素。盡管如此，在馬特洛克發(fā)表了這項(xiàng)顛覆性研究65年之后，仍有人持有這種誤解。
And though it's not life-threatening, that misunderstanding can cause unnecessary stress. As evolutionary biologist John McDonald told PBS, he's received emails from children concerned that they aren't related to their parents because they don't share the ability.
盡管這種誤解不會(huì)危及生命，但還是會(huì)帶來不必要的壓力。進(jìn)化生物學(xué)家約翰•麥克唐納告訴美國公共廣播公司說，他曾收到孩子寫來的電子郵件，寫信的孩子擔(dān)心自己不是父母親生的，因?yàn)楦改?自己)會(huì)卷舌頭而自己(父母)不會(huì)。
Myth 3: You have five senses
誤解三：人有五種感官
Children often learn that they have five senses - sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. That's a "fact" that originated in a work by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, written around 350 BC.
通常孩子們學(xué)到的知識(shí)是，人有五種感官——視覺、聽覺、味覺、觸覺和嗅覺。這一“事實(shí)”源于希臘哲學(xué)家亞里士多德于公元前350年左右寫的一部作品。
However, you actually have more than five senses. Way more. In fact, scientists aren't even sure just how many more - estimates range from 22 to 33. Some of those other senses include equilibrioception (sense of balance), thermoception (sense of temperature), nociception (sense of pain), and kinaesthesia (sense of movement).
然而，實(shí)際上，人的感官不止五種，而是比五種多得多。事實(shí)上，科學(xué)家甚至都不確定還有多少種感官，據(jù)估計(jì)有22到33種。其他一些感官包括平衡感、溫度感、疼痛感和運(yùn)動(dòng)感。
While none of these additional senses include the ability to communicate with the dead, some are absolutely essential for life. For example, our sense of thirst helps our bodies maintain appropriate hydration levels, and people who lack that sense - a rare condition called adipsia - can become severely dehydrated or even die.
盡管其他的這些感官不包括和死人交流的能力，但有些感官對(duì)生存至關(guān)重要。比如，我們的口渴感覺能幫助身體維持適當(dāng)?shù)乃?，沒有口渴感覺的人——這種罕見的病叫渴感缺乏癥——可能會(huì)嚴(yán)重脫水甚至死掉。
Myth 4: Fingernails and hair continue to grow after death
誤解四：指甲和頭發(fā)在人死后還會(huì)繼續(xù)生長
Our bodies do lots of creepy things after we die, but they don't keep growing our fingernails and hair. To do that, our bodies need to produce new cells - something that simply isn't possible after death.
我們的身體在我們死后還會(huì)做很多讓人毛骨悚然的事情，但我們的指甲和頭發(fā)在死后并不會(huì)繼續(xù)生長。如果要繼續(xù)生長，人體需要制造新細(xì)胞，而這在人死后是根本不可能發(fā)生的。
This morbid misconception dates back until at least 1929 when writer Erich Remarque immortalised it in his novel All Quiet on the Western Front. In fact, his misunderstanding is due to an optical illusion.
這種病態(tài)的誤解要追溯到至少1929年，當(dāng)時(shí)作家埃里希•雷馬克在他的小說《西線無戰(zhàn)事》中讓這種觀念深入人心。事實(shí)上，雷馬克的誤解源于光學(xué)錯(cuò)覺。
While our nails and hair don't continue to grow after we breathe our final breath, our skin does "shrink" as it becomes dehydrated. As the skin retracts, our nails and hair become more exposed, and, thus, they may appear to grow.
在我們斷氣后，我們的指甲和頭發(fā)并不會(huì)繼續(xù)生長，但我們的皮膚會(huì)因?yàn)槊撍湛s。皮膚收縮后，我們的指甲和頭發(fā)會(huì)更多地暴露在外，因此它們看上去就好像繼續(xù)生長了。
Luckily, getting this one wrong isn't likely to cause much harm - beyond its potential to give children nightmares or exacerbate a person's thanatophobia, of course.
幸運(yùn)的是，這個(gè)誤解不會(huì)造成太多危害——除了讓孩子做噩夢(mèng)，或加劇人們的死亡恐懼癥。
Myth 5: You should never wake a sleepwalker
誤解五：你絕對(duì)不能叫醒一個(gè)夢(mèng)游的人
Though about 7 percent of the population will sleepwalk at some point in their lives, no one knows for sure what causes somnambulism. What to do should you encounter a slumbering pedestrian is also a source of confusion thanks to a very old misconception.
盡管世界上大約7%的人口會(huì)在人生的某個(gè)時(shí)期夢(mèng)游，但沒人知道是什么原因?qū)е铝藟?mèng)游癥。正是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)古老的誤解，人們搞不清在碰到一個(gè)正在夢(mèng)游的行人時(shí)到底應(yīng)該怎么做。
Mark Pressman, a psychologist and sleep specialist at Lankenau Hospital in Pennsylvania, told Live Science the belief that it's dangerous to wake a sleepwalker began in ancient times when people used to think your soul left your body while you slept.
美國賓夕法尼亞州藍(lán)科納醫(yī)院睡眠專家、心理學(xué)家馬克•普雷斯曼告訴生活科學(xué)網(wǎng)站說，認(rèn)為叫醒夢(mèng)游者很危險(xiǎn)的觀念源自于古代，古人認(rèn)為在你睡覺的時(shí)候，你的靈魂會(huì)離開你的身體。
Waking a sleepwalker, therefore, would doom the sleeper to a soulless existence. The supposed consequences of waking a sleepwalker have since evolved - some say you could induce a heart attack, or send the sleeper into a permanent state of insanity.
因此，叫醒夢(mèng)游者會(huì)讓其變成沒有靈魂的人。后來，叫醒夢(mèng)游者的后果就演變?yōu)檎T發(fā)心臟病或讓夢(mèng)游者從此瘋掉。
While Pressman said waking a sleepwalker won't harm them, it might not be easy to do. Letting a sleepwalker's journey continue uninterrupted is clearly not an option since it could have devastating consequences - sleepwalkers have been known to injure themselves or even die in their zombie-like state.
盡管普雷斯曼說叫醒夢(mèng)游者并不會(huì)傷害他們，但叫醒他們可能并不容易。讓夢(mèng)游者的旅途不受干擾地繼續(xù)下去顯然行不通，因?yàn)榭赡墚a(chǎn)生災(zāi)難性的后果——曾有夢(mèng)游者在夢(mèng)游途中受傷，甚至有人在僵尸般的狀態(tài)中死去。
The best course of action, therefore, is to simply guide a sleepwalker back to bed.
因此，最好的處理辦法就是引導(dǎo)夢(mèng)游者回到床上。
Myth 6: Swallowed chewing gum takes seven years to digest
誤解六：吞進(jìn)肚子的口香糖要花七年時(shí)間才能消化掉
If you believe the legend, gum you swallowed years ago is still in your body; your digestive tract is still working on the chewy mass. While it's impossible to pinpoint the origin of that myth, debunking it is fairly easy.
如果你相信這個(gè)傳言，那么你幾年前吞下的口香糖仍然在你的體內(nèi);你的消化道仍然在處理這塊東西。盡管這一傳言的起源不明，但是揭穿它還是相當(dāng)容易的。
Gum is chewy because it contains a synthetic rubber base that simply isn't digestible. But that doesn't mean swallowed gum can't complete the journey through your digestive tract.
口香糖很耐嚼是因?yàn)樗幸环N不可消化的合成橡膠。但這并不意味著口香糖不能完成消化道的這段旅程。
As Rodger Liddle, a gastroenterologist at the Duke University School of Medicine, told Scientific American, the human body is capable of passing objects up to roughly the size of a quarter, so a single piece of gum should pose no problem.
杜克大學(xué)醫(yī)學(xué)院的胃腸病學(xué)家羅杰•利德爾告訴《科學(xué)美國人》雜志說，人體內(nèi)可以通過一個(gè)25美分硬幣大小的物體，所以一塊口香糖應(yīng)該不會(huì)造成什么問題。
If you were to swallow several pieces of chewing gum in a short amount of time, though, you could end up with a mass too large to pass. At that point, you may need to call on a doctor to remove it manually - in 1998, pediatric gastroenterologist David Milov published a study noting three such cases in children, and the ordeal does not seem pleasant.
然而，如果你在短時(shí)間內(nèi)吞下幾塊口香糖，這么大塊應(yīng)該無法通過消化道。如果是這樣，你也許需要讓醫(yī)生手動(dòng)移除。1998年，小兒腸病學(xué)專家大衛(wèi)•米羅夫發(fā)表了一份研究報(bào)告，其中列出了三個(gè)這樣的兒童病例，而且移除口香糖的過程似乎并不好受。
