September 2011 Archives

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110929144632.htm
Cornell University. "If you're happy and you know it: Researchers trail Twitter to track world's mood swings." ScienceDaily, 29 Sep. 2011. Web. 30 Sep. 2011.

Researchers at Cornell Univeristy are comparing the correlation of daylight and somebody's mood. The University is using social media, such as Twitter, to research these affects. Before the social media, the researchers were relying on some homogeneous samples. Now after working with twitter, two researchers discovered two times a day where the positive attitude was at its highest peak, these times being early in the morning and again towards midnight. They believe these times may be because of work related stress.They also discovered positive feedback takes place on Saturday's and Sunday's, as well. These patterns were continuous throughout different cultures and countries. The researchers found no correlation between daylight and mood but they did find a correlation between the gradual decrease of day length between summer and winter. After reading this article, you need to look at correlation vs. causation. Work-related stress may not be the reason for the correlation between positive moods and two positive peak times. The two times may just be because these are the times when people are not at work therefore they have the time to make 'tweets'. Researchers should also take in perspective the type of jobs these people have.

The subway diet plan became massively popular in 2000 when the story of Jared Fogle, who lost 245 pounds in a year by replacing two meals a day with subway sandwiches, became public. An old college roommate ran into him and didn't recognize him. Jared revealed the secret of his weight loss and the roommate wrote a small story in the local paper about his Subway Diet success. The local Subway storeowner saw the potential of the idea, and after a few hurdles the Subway Diet Plan was launched in 2000.

Now does is this diet entirely true, and does it really work? That is what caught my attention about this entire story. When learning about extraordinary claims it says that an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary amount of evidence. Personally, I don't think the case of Jared Fogle should apply to everyone who tries this diet. This claim is only supported by Jared's experience and they are using this one case to persuade the public. This claim could also fit into the correlation vs causation and could be result of correlation-causation fallacy.In contrast, there are many other variables that could've influenced the outcome of his diet such as an increase in the amount of exercise, reduction in consumption of other foods, and even by radical health changes.

If I had to experiment with this claim, I would conduct an experiment where I would randomly select a group of individuals and then randomly place them into either the experimental or control group. I would then have my independent variable being the subway diet, and my dependent variable being weight loss. By following this procedure and limiting the other potential causes of weight loss, I believe I would be able to come up with a reliable and valid explanation of this claim.

Leung, Rebecca. "The Subway Diet." CBS News. 05 December 2007. 30 September 2011. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/02/48hours/main603484.shtml

http://www.thirdage.com/news/dr-oz-apple-juice-contains-troubling-levels-of-arsenic_09-20-2011
A couple of weeks ago, Dr. Oz made a claim on his show that apple juice contained high levels of arsenic, and that you should not drink it. He, with the help of a New Jersey lab tested the levels of arsenic in popular apple juice brands and concluded that there were extreme amounts of arsenic, as opposed to the organic brands. I believe that in making this claim, Dr. Oz is committing confirmation bias. He has made a claim, but he seems to ignore any evidence that challenges his idea. The FDA sent Dr. Oz a letter before the show aired saying that if he went on with the story that they would post their findings. Obviously, Dr. Oz did the show, so the FDA responded with their findings. The FDA has been testing the potential health risks in the juices for years, and has found that they are safe to drink. Dr. Oz, who specializes in chest, throat, and lung surgeries, ignored these findings, to prove his point. The FDA went on to state that Dr. Oz ignored the essential fact there are two different types of arsenic. The toxic kind is called inorganic arsenic. However, what Dr. Oz found was organic arsenic, which is commonly found in water, and not harmful to the body. Dr. Oz distorted his evidence, by ignoring the fact that the arsenic found was a safe form of arsenic. For Dr. Oz's claims to be seen as real, I believe that he should the extra-ordinary claims critical thinking principle. He believes that apple juice is dangerous, because of these levels of arsenic, but he did not provide any examples of anyone who has experienced these dangers. This is a serious claim, but it is not currently backed by serious evidence. While many viewers were potentially frightened by the story when it first ran, if they read what the FDA released, or used the critical thinking principle of extra-ordinary claims, they would realize that there is nothing to fear.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14389430?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The research that was allegedly done to prove Internet Explorer users are less intelligent then other browser users. The claim that the researchers made was an extraordinary one, but they did not provide an extraordinary amount of evidence to back up this claim. The group claimed that they had questioned over 100,000 internet users to get their results. This was take a lot of time to do, in terms of collecting dating, analyzing the data and coming up with anything of significance. Websites contacted people who were not affiliated with who concluded that the whole thing was a hoax, as the data for internet explorer users was way too low. People also looked at the researchers making this claim and found the website affiliated with them was new, and the research information was copied from another website. This is after several large media outlets such as the BBC, NBC and other had posted the story on their websites.

The reason why so many people fell for this hoax may have been due to belief perseverance. People may want to believe that their choice of browser impacts their IQ, but in reality such a thing is nonsense. The media loves to try and rile people up using exaggerated claims and sketchy "scientific" studies as it brings in big ratings and pulls at people's hearts. A thorough investigation of the evidence that supports the claims reveals that there is no support for such claims.

Do you believe we are who we are because of our genes or our rearing environments? This has become a big debate in the psychological world for quite some time. The debate of Nature or Nurture has struck many people. Many people would argue that we act the way we do due to Nature, or our genetic make up. Others would argue differently. They would say our environment (nurture) shapes us to be who we are. In other words, we learn from experience. This question was first proposed by Francis Galton in the late 19th century. He believed that intellectual ability was largely inherited. Environmentalists argued against him and said that the human mind is gradually filled as a result of experience. There have been many different experiments proving both nature and nurture make us who we are. I think that the importance of this debate is that we understand how much each of these ideas influence us. By looking into both sides we can form an understanding about what shapes who we are. This helps reveal causes of things to society so that we can use these findings to help predict future outcomes for new borns.

Many nativist believe strictly that our psychological traits including personality, intelligence, and interests are due to a genetic code. They think everything was "wired in" us before we were born. We have physical traits such as eye color, hair color, curly or straight hair, height, weight, and color of skin are due to genetics. There has been studies proving that there are certain genes that contribute to behavior and diseases. For example there are four genes that contribute to the risk of alcoholism. There has also been gene links to how fast a person can run.

On the other hand, empiricists believe that behavioral differences are a result of learning. There has been twin, adoption, and family studies that have helped show that we learn from our environment. One intresting study that has emerged is the study of feral children. This goes to show that we are shaped by our environment. Feral children are usually abandoned or abused at birth. Some are locked up while others are raised in the wilderness by animals. They adopt traits from learning and watching the animals, and it makes them physically behave as an animal. There genetic makeup from their parents really had little impact on these children.The way that these people are is due to their experience. Many of them cannot talk which shows that language is learned over time. Children in the wilderness show traits of animals such as barking, walking on four limbs, and eating like an animal. They aquired these traits due to the experience of watching the animals around them and picking up their habits. There has also been research done on feral children where people try to teach them human language and ways of life and their behavior was actually able to be changed. This shows that we are who we are due to experience and learning. Watch these you tube videos, they are very interesting and show insight to the nurture debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljVd6XS-J0s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STn3bpTTU6c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEnkY2iaKis

This debate has somewhat been considered dead now. Almost everyone now agrees that both genes and the environment shape us. Overall genes give us our physical characteristics as well as some inherited behaviors, but our environment and experience in the world really shape who we are.This is relevant to me because it can help me bring up my child in the future. I know that my behavior and their experience will shape them so I need to be careful with some of the things I do which they can learn from. I also know that they will genetically inherit some of my personality traits and features. Even though this debate is at an end, people still have a lot to learn about how the environment and genetics shapes us. This debate does lead me with the question of, what shapes us more? I would like to know which one really makes us more of who we are. These insights can help us form to be someone we want to be.

Read more about this debate at:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWVNesAm94Q

After watching the youtube video (link above), most parents would be tempted to find the quickest way possible to get their hands on this seemingly miraculous product. As the babies in the video read the words aloud (or in some cases, point), it is difficult to doubt the effectiveness of "Your Baby Can Read". If the evidence is right before our eyes (assuming that the children are actually reading), how can we label the product as an element of pseudoscience? While watching the video, the reliance on anecdotes is extremely apparent, and the scientific reasoning behind the product is virtually nonexistent. As our Psychology book mentions, "overreliance on anecdotes" is a clear warning sign of pseudoscience. Just because the stories in the youtube video were stories of success, does not mean that every child will learn how to read through the program. According to our Psychology textbook, these anecdotes, as impressive as they may appear, do not constitute as scientific evidence.

This product could also be classified as pseudoscience by use of the principles of scientific thinking. Just because the babies in the video knew how to read and watched the "Your Baby Can Read" videos, the causation between the two events is not known. Just because these two events are correlated, it does not mean that there is causation. The parents of these children could have also spent hours reading to them every night.

Besides the issue of correlation, there is also the issue of replicability. By watching the video, little is known about whether the findings can be replicated. If the other children can learn how to read by using the product, the finding is considered to be replicable. This idea of replicability relates to the idea of "overreliance on anecdotes". Just because the babies in the video are able to read, does not mean that this finding can be replicated with all children. So, just because "Your Baby Can Read", it does not mean my baby can.

Global warming has been the talk, well of the globe lately. Scientist say to blame is us people emitting fossil fuels and oils which create greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gasses are gasses that don't allow heat to escape out of the atmosphere. I will actually use the six principals to disclaim global warming.
1. There could be many reasons for what scientists call global warming. Do they have exact proof that it is the greenhouse gasses that are causing global warming?
2. Just because we are using gases and fuels doesn't mean that is the actual cause of global warming.
3 Can we actually test what greenhouse gasses are in the atmosphere? How can we eliminate them if they are causing our world to heat up.
4. We know of previous ice ages and so forth but how do we know what is going on now went on before then? If we can test for the gasses in our atmosphere have we done it multiple times? Numbers can only tell us what happened in the past, but they can't tell us exactly what will happen in the future.
5. So scientists are claiming global warming is such a big deal when we could be blowing it all out of proportion and overreacting. Does anyone remember Y2K?
6. Is there any other simpler way to determine why our summers are getting a little warmer than usual.

Overall, just because scientists are telling us global warming is happening doesn't mean it is actually true. To some people it is just a myth and actually I think it is a way for companies to sell their products. Have you ever noticed that the products that are "greener" are actually more expensive?

Reference: http://epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

Just recently, Bloomberg Businessweek announced there may be a connection between a certain strain of the cold virus, AD36, and childhood obesity. Though there could be a link between the two, there is no proof that there is causation. Using the six principles of critical thinking may help evaluate this claim.
One of the most important critical thinking principles to look at while examining this claim is that correlation isn't causation. Just because there may be an association between AD36 and childhood obesity, does not necessarily mean that AD36 causes childhood obesity. There may be other important variables, such as the third variable problem, that should also be factored into the equation. For example, maybe children living with obesity have weaker immune systems, and are more susceptible to AD36. Ruling out rival hypotheses is another critical thinking principle to look at in response to this article. The article discussed how AD36 can result in a greater chance of having childhood obesity. Though this may be true, the article did not include any other plausible explanations. Another important principle of critical thinking to examine while inspecting this claim is replicability. The article did state that other studies working with animals and human adults have come up with similar results. Though this shows some level of replicability, the article never mentioned any other studies done on children. This may be due to how recently these results have been reported and discussed in news articles.
Though there may be some validity to this claim, there is just not enough evidence to conclude it is completely legitimate. One of the most important factors to examine while looking at the majority of claims is correlation versus causation. In order for this claim to become more reliable, it needs to be replicated as well as examined for possible variables influencing this study's results.

Just as Stevie Wonder said, humans can be very superstitious. But what is it that can make so afraid of everyday phenomenon. The answer is illusiory correlation, or seeing a realtion between variables where no realtion exsists. Humans are overall very poor at judging correlations. We tend to see a straight relationship between variable A and variable B, even it is higly extrordinary and unlikely, and we tend to leave out the fact that any number of other factors could also be at play. This is like saying a low number of Ph. D.'s in Montana is a cause for a higher number of mules, whereas the most likely explanation is Montana is very rural and devoid of many universities, but filled with animals such as mules. But why do so many humans fall to illusiory correlation? The answer lies within exciting news and confirmation bias. With so much information in our world, humans often never remember a boring event. This is like asking someone to tell you what they were doing on the day of 9/11 versus what they were doing the previous week. Thus humans overlook the average data in their lives and jump on the extrordiany data. This can be demonstrated by the superstition of a full moon, a man can live through countless full moons that are average, but it only takes a couple full moons with a big crime made under them for the man to make a correlation that full moons mean big crime. He will always accept data for full moon crimes due to his confirmation bias. This illusiory correlation is the reason that humans develop supersitions. Over many generations humans experience an event such as walking under a ladder or having a black cat walk across one's path, and then have something bad happen in their life which they then blame on "bad luck", which over the years develops into superstition.

So how does a scientist disprove superstitions? First of all, Occam's razor should always be used. This goes back to the Ph. D.'s in Montana demonstraion, variable A could relate to variable B, but the simplist explanation is variable C. Secondly, a scientist must give equal attention to the "boring data" in an event, because with all data taken for account, the extrordinary events look not so convincing. And finaly, a scientist should always test and observe the casue and effect relationships of the supersitions to see if there really is a relationship.

After learning about pseudoscience, it is surprising how much I notice it now in the media--especially in magazines. Pseudoscience is when something is presented as scientific information, when in reality it lacks scientific thinking principles. There were two primary examples of pseudoscience I came across in the magazine Cosmopolitan. In the first example, there was a picture of a hand indicating different characteristics. For example, one claimed that if a certain line in your hand was more curved, you were more likely to be emotionally expressive. Another line apparently shows whether a guy is a logical thinker or emotional thinker. Even more outrageous was the claim that if a guy's index finger is shorter than his ring finger, he has a bigger "package". This pseudoscience was palm reading for the over-analyzing relationship girl. There is no scientific evidence that hand characteristics are correlated to psychological or behavioral traits in a human. The claims are not falsifiable by any means, and if one considered Occam's razor, it is more likely that the psychological traits (such as logical vs. emotional) are caused by several simpler explanations. Maybe the guy is a logical thinker because it is part of his personality, or maybe his package is big because it runs genetically in his family. Did Cosmo ever stop to think about that?

The second example of pseudoscience I found in Cosmo were horoscopes. Mine claimed that I should volunteer to help my boss on a project because "getting on her good side will score big points later". Well... I don't have a job, and when I did my boss was male. This not only shows pseudoscience, but also shows the concept of 'multiple end points'. It's usually fair to say that most people purchasing a Cosmo magazine have a job. It's more specific to call a boss a "her". Women who read this and coincidentally have a female boss are likely to fall into the trap of illusory correlation, meaning we're more likely to remember coincidences even though the odds are against the correlation. Overall, the palm reading and horoscope articles in Cosmopolitan Magazine prove that pseudoscience is common in our everyday lives. Luckily, by practicing the six principles of scientific thinking we can avoid being the victim of "scientific" nonsense.

Throughout the media, pseudoscience is common with the belief of man on the moon. This article (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm) sparked my interest because Bill Kaysing, an advocate for the hoax theory and author of We Never Went To The Moon, insists upon delusive evidence. His claim to his belief is that, "The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place," (1). The problem with this theory is that it was reported in the late 1950s and many advances in technology have taken place since then.

Along with that theory, Kaysing adds, "The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it," (1). Kaysing made this statement without ruling out rival hypotheses. We should not automatically think that this is the only possible answer, but explore other possibilities. Using Occam's Razor we can find the simplest explanation to counterclaim Kaysing's theory of inadequate video. The poor quality of the video can simply be explained through the distance of the moon and Earth, where the Apollo 11 landing took place. The distance restricted the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted from one place to the other. The video was then forced to use a slow-scan TV camera in black and white with 10 frames per second rate. This also created complications for transmitting the scenes to television, which required the video to be converted to the commercial TV standards. This explanation is more reliable through Occam's Razor because it takes the simplest explanation and shaves off the needlessly complicated explanation.

Another one of Kaysing's claim is that, "The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs," (1). This demonstrates the 2nd scientific thinking principle, correlation isn't causation. In the above statement, Kaysing is saying if there is not a sky full of stars, then the Apollo photographs are hoaxes. This is untrue because in the 2nd principle, it clearly states that correlation does not mean causation. If I am carrying, a pencil, does that mean I am going to write? No, I may be using this pencil to poke a hole in a water bottle. In this case, a simple explanation could be that when photographing the moon, the objects were too bright, which made the stars look dull and unable to view through the picture.

Occam's Razor is the 6th principle of scientific thinking and according to this principle, if there are two theories or explanations of something, one would always takes the simplest answer. Kaysing tries to prove against this principle by stating that some of the Apollo video shows the American flag fluttering and it should not be doing so because there is no wind on the Moon (1). A simple explanation for this is that, it is apparent in all the videos that an astronaut is holding onto the flag. If a person is holding onto the flag, it is easily twisted and bumped around causing the flag to flutter.

After proving many of Kaysing's theories wrong, the most useful principle for evaluating this claim is Occam's Razor. The author of this article tries to come up with explanations and excuses as to why the moon landing was a hoax, but thinking simply and efficiently proves his theories wrong time after time.

Reading this article made me realize that many people find comfort in their own beliefs. People believe what they want to believe and even though there are strong evidence for something, they want to believe they have control and will come up with crazy explanations that defy the six scientific principles.

Below is a link to a youtube video of the Apollo 11, Man on the Moon landing. Take note on Kaysing's claims and see for yourself if it holds up against the six principles or if it is all a hoax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4

Citations:
1."The Moon Hoax Debate." Www.braeunig.us. Web. 25 Sept. 2011.
.

http://www.icr.org/article/6314/

In the above article, 'scientist' Brian Thomas makes an attempt to refute the work of an evolutionist professor, while blatantly disregarding each one of the six principles of scientific thinking. Here's how he does it:

Mr. Thomas does not rule out rival hypotheses, he simply refutes those of a professor that he doesn't agree with. He asserts his views of how humans came to be, which shows his very evident confirmation bias.

In one example, Thomas says that humans and apes have 700 million genetic differences, which he views as a cause for the creationist view. What he neglects to mention is how many traits we do have in common. Upon further research in the same Oxford journal that Thomas references (located at http://goo.gl/RrDE4), I learned that 700 million is only 23 percent of genetic traits. That means that we share a whopping 77 percent of our traits with chimpanzees. Thomas was too lazy to do simple math, and did not take into account that correlation isn't necessarily causation.

Falsifiability, Replicability, and Extraordinary Claims are not applicable to Thomas's work. He does no experiment nor provide a theory, he just argues with little basis. He does argue and cite sources, but the sources include the Bible, which is not a scientific source, or are used poorly, as in the case I explained above, or are simply too weak to support his extraordinary claim. There is an astounding amount of hard, scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. QualiaSoup is an excellent Youtube channel that has an excellent video that I wish Thomas had seen before writing his piece. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

As for Occam's Razor, a quick read through the article will show that Thomas does not give a simple solution by any means. His reasoning behind his points is confusing, at best, to the scientific mind. The most important principle of scientific thinking in this article, however, is 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. As I said earlier, Thomas is refuting a theory that is backed by many years of scientific research. A rational mind would see that his extraordinary claim is supported by minimal evidence, and is therefore invalid.

For a long time, people have marveled at the possibility that only 10% of the human brain was actively being used. With everything that humans have accomplished, could it be possible that we have done all of this, far more than any other known species, with only a small portion of our brain power? If somehow the rest of the brain could be tapped, the possibilities would be seemingly endless. Cancer would be a thing of the past, disease in general could quite possible be gone forever, future civilizations would be able to live much more efficiently in general. The myth started far back in the late 1800's by one of the fathers of Psychology, William James. James suggested that most people only fulfill a small portion of their intellectual potential. The myth grew and grew until eventually, it became a quite common misconception.

However, with modern technology, we are much better able to understand the brain and almost literally "see" how it works with neuroimaging. No scientist has yet to discover a silent area of the brain; every area seems to be active at certain times depending on what is needed to perceive our surroundings and actively think, and problem solve. Further modern evidence has helped to debunk the old rumor as well. The fact that many brain damaged people lose the ability to perform a certain function after an injury shows that the damaged area of the brain was vital to that area of operation. This basically means that no matter where in the brain you are injured, consequences will be suffered.... A sad but true fact that destroys any hope of the 10% rumor being true.

Despite the fact that modern science has busted this old myth, I still believe that our brains are "limitless" in some ways. First, people have extraordinary ways of learning and adapting from past mistakes. Every mistake made is a lesson learned, and that makes people smarter every day. We will always learn from the past and continue to evolve as time goes on. I also believe that our potential to learn and discover goes as far as our imagination, which is a long ways. As long as their is the desire to learn more about the world we live in, people will continue to gain knowledge and become smarter, effectively making our brains... limitless

(Here's a link that provides seven different reasons for why the world will end in 2012:
http://buburuza.net/2008/08/seven-reasons-the-world-will-end-in-2012-proven-scientifically/)

I'm sure everyone has heard of the infamous claim that the world will end on December 21, 2012--according to the Mayan calendar. So how does this Mesoamerican Long Count calendar even work?

The calendar is arranged in multiples of twenty. The basic unit is the k'in, or a day. Twenty k'ins make a uinal, eighteen uinals make a tun (which is equivalent to a 360-day year), twenty tuns make a k'atun, and twenty k'atuns make a b'ak'tun (roughly 394 years), and finally, thirteen b'ak'tuns compose the whole cycle (about 5,125 years). Ultimately, according to the starting date of this calendar, 5,125 years later would be the year of 2012, and the end of the calendar cycle.

The Mayans were great mathematicians and astronomers, with amazingly accurate measurements, as the article mentions. So, it would make sense to believe that there was a purpose for the day in which the Mayans chose to end their calendar cycle: the Earth's doomsday. But, according to Occam's razor, the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is usually the correct explanation. Although the idea that the world is coming to an end is a pretty simple explanation, are there any other explanations that may be even simpler? Could this just be a coincidence? Maybe 5,125 years is so long that the Mayans saw no point in creating another calendar cycle? Or maybe the calendar makers got tired?

But due to this claim, there have been massive floods of ideas revolving around the topic of how the world will come to an end. Some of the most popular scenarios include: an asteroid will smash into Earth; the Earth's magnetic field will reverse; the black hole in the galactic center will affect us; the Sun will align with the galactic equator on the winter solstice. The article also provides a few more reasons, such as a sun storm, volcanic eruption, and evidence from different religious teachings (which would be impossible to prove or disprove since it is a metaphysical claim). But with all these extraordinary claims, there seems to be very little extraordinary or concrete evidence. In addition, the author repeatedly uses the words "suggests" or "likely," which provides a low sense of validity to these claims.

I neither strongly believe in nor oppose these claims. But because people are constantly searching for answers in fear of the unknown, they often begin to lack logic and or rationality as a result, so it is important to analyze the many different aspects of a situation.

http://www.asontvinfomercials.com/abrocket.html

The above link is of the "AbRocket" infomercial. While reading the company's tag line, I recognized right a pseudoscience technique. "In just 5 minutes a day, the "AbRocket" will rocket your abs from flab to fab!" This struck me as an exaggerated claim. How can any exercise done only 5 minutes a day provide any affect on your overall all physique? That question forced me to read through the rest of the article. Through my reading I found other such lines as, "The fast, easy way to get rocket hard abs...", and "Melt Inches From Your Waistline". All of these claims made by the company were extremely outlandish and had no back-up what so ever. I began to use the scientific steps to evaluate these "extraordinary claims".
I first looked for any scientific reasoning to back up what the infomercial was saying. I found none. The ad had no evidence to support the claims that there product could improve your abs or "melt inches from your waistline". It quite simply was filled with promising sayings and quotes, which are all key indications of pseudoscience. The key scientific principle of "extraordinary claims", according our psychology book, states that the evidence present must be as strong as the claim. However, at the end of the article, there was a section briefly saying that the product comes with a "low calorie meal plan, and 4 fat blasting workout DVDs". It just proved that the company is insinuating that there product, ON TOP of diet and exercise, can help you lose the weight and get the rock hard abs. Therefore, it wasn't hard to see that although the ad was very appealing, there, unfortunately, was no scientific evidence to support it.

In 2006, two scientists announced that they had cooked an egg by placing it in between two cell phones. It has been thrououghly disproven and analyzed since the surface of the claim, but it is still an excellent opportunity to use the Scientific Thinking Principles on!

#1: Ruling Out Rival Hypotheses
This principle isn't the most relevant because the experiment doesn't exactly prove any hypotheses. But it can still apply to the attempt to cook an egg between two cell phones because there could be other effects causing that outcome.

#2: Correlation vs. Causation
There are so many other reasons that the egg could've cooked! Maybe it was really hot out? Or the cell phone egg set up was within a microwave? Not the most probable of all possible causations, but it proves the point. There could be many other ways this egg could've cooked (or in actuality, the fact that it didn't cook at all) that we need to examine or at least acknowledge that they could be there.

#3: Falsifiability
This claim is very out there so it has a really good chance of being able to be falsified. As we will see in #4, after replicating the incident one can find almost instantly that it is in fact a hoax.

#4: Replicability
As many people did, reproducing the egg cooking experiement will prove that it is in fact a hoax. Every reproduction that was prodcued failed to yield the same results as the first, which made everything make sense when the site's webmaster that published the article stepped forward to say it was in fact completely fake.

#5: Extraordinary Claims
The claim that you can cook an egg with two cell phones is pretty extraordinary yet there is no extraordinary evidence to back it up! In fact, it is just too extraordinary to be real.

#6: Occam's Razor
In my mind, the simpliest explaination would be that it simply is not true. The end.

I'm not going to lie, if this claim was true I would be thrilled. In addition to being in awe of the power of technology, it would make cooking meals for myself in my dorm room a whole lot easier! Unfortunately though, this is a hoax. With the help of the Six Principles of Scientific Thinking, I will never fall for this or any other raw food cooking claim ever again!

Wilson, Clare. "Spellbound." New Scientist 187.2510 (2005): 32. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 29 Sept. 2011.

Do you believe in horoscopes? Tarot cards? Palm readings? According to this article, "cold readings," faux insights into people's personalities and everyday happenings, are successful in persuasion due to the selective attention of the person receiving insight.

For example, Stacy opens up the Horoscope section in the MN Daily, and what does she find?--a reading of her day, telling her that her stress level will go up with her upcoming test and relationship issues. Maybe the horoscope will add something random about her recent, physical injury that will complicate her day.

Stacy, thinking about her first Exam in Psychology coming up, is now in awe; how did the newspaper know that she was going to have an exam?! And, how did it know that she and her boyfriend were working out drama from going out to the bars last Friday night? Never mind the fact that she does not have an injury; the other two observations were spot-on, so the MN Daily Horoscopes MUST be psychic. Right?

Wrong.

First, let me dish out some reasons why cold reading is considered a simple way for people to be persuaded into these false readings: Cold readings use the 'sleight of tongue' technique by suggesting a number of things that may happen within a person's day, because one of the suggestions is bound to apply; Cold readings generalize and take into consideration environmental factors, such as the temporal setting in the semester that makes it more likely for a midterm or exam to occur on a college campus.

With those simple concepts in mind, let's further apply the cold reading techniques to the horoscope situation with Stacy: Stacy is stressed out about her exam and recent boyfriend issues; so, she is already trying to find meaning in her life as to why her problems are arising now, or how she is going to manage it all. Even though she has no injury, she wants to figure out some reason or meaning for the events in her life. Therefore, she ignores the injury comment and focuses on the other two readings. According to our Psychology textbook, "humans seek meaning in our worlds and often find it when it's not there" (Lilienfield 134).

This example specifically relates to one quote from the article cited: "Even specific pronouncements can apply to many people. For example, a survey of 6000 people showed that one third agreed with the statement: "I have a scar on my left knee," and over a quarter with: "Someone in my family is called Jack." As long as the psychic makes numerous guesses, the odds are that a few will hit the mark. And thanks to our selective memories, we tend to remember the hits and forget the misses."

Cold readings are best tested using Occam's Razor, or the simplest explanation, to describe the extraordinary insights. The simplest explanation, in this case, is that there are over 50,000 people on campus who read the MN Daily. Generally speaking, most of them are going through relationship problems (whether it's a family member, significant other, coworker, etc.) or other issues related to the horoscope. It is more likely that the cold reading is a logical guess than a factual insight into someone's personal life.

Many people have heard about ESP, or extrasensory perception. ESP involves precognition, telepathy, and clairvoyance. Individuals with ESP believe they can predict the future, read people's minds, or sense the presence of hidden objects and people. Although there is very little if any scientific evidence to support this theory, many still believe in the powers of ESP. Because of this, extrasensory perception is a reoccurring theme in our society and it deserves to be examined. It plays an important role in how we live our lives and how we view the future.
In the past, scientists have conducted studies to determine if ESP is truly possible or if it is just a result of coincidences and our imagination. We all have had dreams that have come true, myself included. Just last week I dreamt that I received an A on an exam and that was the grade of the next exam I got back. Small things like that happen to all of us but does that make us psychic? Does that prove we can predict the future? According to current scientific evidence, no it does not. We have a tendency to underestimate the likelihood of coincidences. But that is not hindering proponents of ESP. scientific research is continually being conducted in order to prove the validity of extrasensory perception. That alone makes the ideas of ESP important in the lives of many people in our world today.
The attached article, from "Psychology Today", further evaluates the question of ESP being real or not. It discusses specific examples and begs the question whether the outcome is due to psychic vision or extreme coincidence. In any case, it is doubtful that the ESP argument will be solved anytime soon but it is important not to discount any part of it. Look at both sides of the discussion with a critical eye and be open to the possibility of scientific validation.

Article Link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200007/is-there-sixth-sense

Society's perception of psychics: http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/dcr0153l.jpg

I'm just checking to see if I can write a post here and upload a photo (of this neat moon illusion over the Parthenon in Greece.) Evidently, I can.

A blog post is a specific form of writing, but one that is easily adapted to other settings. A good post starts with some prompt--an idea, a claim, an article, an experience--and the post responds to this prompt by providing evidence to support or rebut the prompt, in writing that is brief, focused and interesting. One of our goals in Psy 1001 is to help you develop critical thinking skills and a blog post is an excellent way to practice critical thinking as you write. Behaviorally, writing that reflects critical thinking has these features: the author a) asks questions and is willing to wonder; b) defines problems clearly; c) examines evidence; d) analyzes assumptions and biases; e) avoids emotional reasoning; f) avoids oversimplification; g) considers alternative interpretations; h) tolerates uncertainty. (from Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22. 24-28.) I would add to this list, i) takes the perspective of others.

Generic prompts:

We have several general topics that can be used for any of your posts, 1-6.

1) Identify one important concept, research finding, theory or idea from Psy 1001 lectures or the Lilienfeld text from the past two weeks. Summarize the concept in your own words and explain why you believe this concept research finding, theory or idea is important. Apply this to some aspect of your life (real life example are an excellent way to learn. Photos, You-tube videos, etc. are encouraged.) As you reflect on this concept, research finding, theory or other idea, what other questions occur to you? What are you still wondering about?

2) Provide a link to an article, hoax or claim that has been made in the media and evaluate the claim using one or more of the six principles of critical thinking. Apply a concept, research finding, theory or idea that you have learned about in Psychology to provide an alternative explanation. Which principle is most useful for evaluating this particular claim? Remember to cite your sources.

3) If you can think of a different explanation or want to support something one of your classmates has posted, you can respond with a post of your own. Be sure to provide evidence to support your response.