hoge0068: October 2011 Archives

Catfish Eats Basketball

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes

Catfish Eats Basketball:
In this scenario the Hoax is: Catfish eats basketball (stuck in its mouth).
Though catfish can grow to be huge, even gigantic fish with extremely wide mouths, it's not everyday that we see a catfish was an enlarged basketball stuck in its mouth while on the deck of your lakefront home/cabin. In this experience a man and wife were on the lake when they saw a basketball gliding across the water (looking odd). When they got close to the basketball they noticed it was gulped inside of a large mouthed catfish.

Using the Scientific Thinking Principle #3 Falsifiability; that is, (capable of being disproved) I believe my self that a catfish of the right size (gigantic) could produce the ability to hold an 8 inch basketball within the grasp of his mouth. But without trying this experiment on a (gigantic) catfish ourselves we have no information to make us believe this isn't photoshopped in this day and age.

Using the Scientific Thinking Principle #2 Correlation vs. Causation:
(variable a=b, Variable b=a, or variable c=a/variable c=b)
Aside from the ability of others to use the newest of technologies to make an image of such sort, I believe people would do such a thing to a catfish as to gain a few laughs. Putting an 8 inch basketball in a catfish's mouth, can seem to be funny to some people I would assume. In this scenario Variable C (people/person) equating variable A (the basketball in the catfish's mouth). Here's how I believe the basketball was placed in the catfishes mouth. After catching a (gigantic) catfish someone could have opened the catfish's mouth put a basketball right inside and drop the fish back into the water and left, making the next person to see it next think instantly that the catfish grasped with its mouth as if it though it was food. Not only could a person have done this and left the catfish for others to see, but the person who took these photos and made them viral on the internet could have done this him/herself for public humor, self humor etc. Not only is this a sick and disgusting thought, but the basketball that was inside the catfish's mouth was not allowing the catfish to dive back down into the water. So the man and wife who came across this catfish has to pop the basketball to deflate it so the gigantic catfish could dive back into the deep water where he hopefully lives to this day.

http://0.tqn.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/3/9/fish_story_005.jpg

Alligators in the sewers

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes

(http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/alligators/a/sewer_gators.htm)

Alligators in the sewers:
Thinking Principle #4 Replicability means that a study's findings can be duplicated consistently. Since there has only been a single instance that an actual alligator was found in the New York sewers I find it myself quote unquote impossible to duplicate the findings consistently. The lilienfeld text says we shouldn't place too much stock in a psychological finding until it's been replicated. There is no replicability to this theory, in other words, sewer workers have come across an alligator in the exact sewer consistently.
Since there has only been one instance that an alligator was found in the sewers of New York there is a tad bit of truth to this urban legend. A documented capture of an eight-foot alligator at the bottom of an East Harlem manhole in 1935 gave proof that there was at least (1) alligator underneath the streets of busy New York. To say that there are alligators underneath the streets of New York is to bold a statement, to be more specific, sewer workers would need to check every foot of sewer water in New York. According to the Scientific Thinking principle #3 Falsifiability this theory of alligators in the sewers would have to be falsifiable, that it is, capable of being disproved. To disprove this theory, sewer workers would need to check every sewer way and every inch of the sewer water to check for alligators all over New York. In order to check every sewer, sewer workers would need to block off sewer passages so if there were alligators they wouldn't miss them, or have them go unaccounted for. This theory is not capable of being disproved due to the vast passages sewer ways behold. On behalf of Scientific Thinking Principles #3 and #4 I find this theory bogus to the core.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_drinking_cold_water.htm

This article states that drinking cold water after a meal causes cancer, stating the cold water will solidify the oily stuff you have just consumed leading to slowing of the digestion. In the next sentence it states once the "sludge" reacted with the acid will break down and be absorbed by the intestine faster then the solid food, thus lining the intestine. Its last statement is that the sludge lining your intestine will very soon to fat leading to cancer. It also states drinking hot water or soup after a meal is best. Replicability to me, means that a study's findings (in this case drinking cold water after a meal=cancer) can be replicated exactly to show the exact results consistently. This claim can not be repeated consistently due to the fact that every person is different. Possibly one person could have had this happen to them but it wouldn't have been possible to repeatedly duplicate the results mainly because different experimenters have entirely different bodily figures all together. This claim is truly an extraordinary claim. Stating drinking cold water after a meal equals cancer; under how many circumstances have you drank a glass of cold water after breakfast, lunch, and or dinner throughout your life? Probably for most of us reading this number is in the 1,000's, in how many of those circumstances have you been diagnosed with cancer due to specifically drinking cold water after a meal? I am hoping you answered zero. Though this claim is extraordinary the evidence provided is no where near extraordinary due to the fact that is has no scientific basis backing it up. Overall, I find myself in one hundred percent disbelief with this claim due to the scientific thinking principles #4 and #5 used to tear this claim apart.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries written by hoge0068 in October 2011.

hoge0068: November 2011 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.