Humor in Everyday Life

Danish writer Mikael Wulff and cartoon artist Anders Morgenthaler - the creative duo known as Wumo - has created a brilliant series of graphs that illustrate  the basic painful truths of everyday life in the Western world.Their graphs and diagrams are snarky and sarcastic but, for the most part, true. This, coupled with their simple and official-looking design, makes them a delight to look at.

Wulff and Morgenthaler share these images on Wumo (formerly known as Wulffmorgenthaler).If you think you may have seen their work before, it should come as no surprise - they are a fairly successful cartoon duo.Their rise to success started in 2001, when they entered and won a cartoon competition. When they won, they received a one-month run of their comic strip in Politiken, a national Danish newspaper. Their popularity soared with the new exposure, and they soon found more and more publishers, including several blogs and newspapers throughout Scandinavia and Germany.

Their most recent accomplishment was becoming a regular cartoon strip in the New York Times.

Interesting, but curious information

I have not validated any of these, but they sound legit.
=======================================

1. Glass takes one million years to decompose, which means it never wears out and can be recycled an infinite amount of times!
2. Gold is the only metal that doesn't rust, even if it's buried in the ground for thousands of years.
3. Your tongue is the only muscle in your body that is attached at only one end.
4. If you stop getting thirsty, you need to drink more water. When a human body is dehydrated, its thirst mechanism shuts off.
5. Zero is the only number that cannot be represented by Roman numerals.
6. Kites were used in the American Civil War to deliver letters and newspapers.
7. The song, Auld Lang Syne, is sung at the stroke of midnight in almost every English-speaking country in the world to bring in the new year.
8. Drinking water AFTER eating reduces the acid in your mouth by 61 percent.
9. Peanut oil is used for cooking in submarines because it doesn't smoke unless it's heated above 450F.
10. The roar that we hear when we place a seashell next to our ear is not the ocean, but rather the sound of blood surging through the veins in the ear.
11. Nine out of every 10 living things live in the ocean.
12. The banana cannot reproduce itself. It can be propagated only by the hand of man.
13. Airports at higher altitudes require a longer airstrip due to lower air density.
14. The University of Alaska spans four time zones.
15. The tooth is the only part of the human body that cannot heal itself.
16. In ancient Greece, tossing an apple to a girl was a traditional proposal of marriage. Catching it meant she accepted.
17. Warner Communications paid $28 million for the copyright to the song Happy Birthday.
18. Intelligent people have more zinc and copper in their hair.
19. A comet's tail always points away from the sun.
20. The Swine Flu vaccine in 1976 caused more death and illness than the disease it was intended to prevent.
21. Caffeine increases the power of aspirin and other painkillers, that is why it is found in some medicines.
22. The military salute is a motion that evolved from medieval times, when knights in armor raised their visors to reveal their identity.
23. If you get into the bottom of a well or a tall chimney and look up, you can see stars, even in the middle of the day.
24. When a person dies, hearing is the last sense to go. The first sense lost is sight.
25. In ancient times strangers shook hands to show that they were unarmed.
26. Strawberries are the only fruits whose seeds grow on the outside.
27. Avocados have the highest calories of any fruit at 167 calories per hundred grams.
28. The moon moves about two inches away from the Earth each year.
29. The Earth gets 100 tons heavier every day due to falling space dust.
30. Due to earth's gravity it is impossible for mountains to be higher than 15,000 meters.
31. Mickey Mouse is known as "Topolino" in Italy.
32. Soldiers do not march in step when going across bridges because they could set up a vibration which could be sufficient to knock the bridge down.
33. Everything weighs one percent less at the equator.
34. For every extra kilogram carried on a space flight, 530 kg of excess fuel are needed at lift-off.
35. The letter J does not appear anywhere on the periodic table of the elements.

Why is Critical Thinking so Hard to Teach?

This is a reprint of the eSkeptic Magazine of 25 March, 2015.

BY KEVIN MCCAFFREE & ANONDAH SAIDE

Critical thinking has long been recognized as the vehicle by which individuals make informed decisions. Yet, shockingly little understanding exists of how critical thinking strategies are best diffused to the public. In the U.S. there are several regional grassroots organizations such as the Center for Applied Rationality that exist to encourage the development of critical thinking skills. Strategies are numerous and varied, ranging from straightforward group discussions of cognitive biases to thought experiments designed to improve objectivity and to develop the ability to see things from another’s perspective. In addition to such organizations that target individuals, groups and corporations, many colleges and universities offer classes that teach critical thinking strategies.

The Skeptics Society’s own Skeptical Studies Curriculum Resource Center, informally known as Skepticism 101, provides hundreds of resources from professors across the country actively teaching their own critical thinking courses. The skeptical and secular community feel the high percentage of the general public who believe pseudoscientific claims is worrisome, and education is seen as the means by which believers can be reasoned out of their misconceptions. Indeed, with survey data showing that between 67 and 73 percent of adults in the U.S. subscribe to at least one paranormal belief1, 2 this topic needs empirical clarification.

Education and Paranormal Belief
Unfortunately, the empirical relation between educational attainment in general, and belief in the paranormal (e.g., in ghosts, astrology, telepathy) is a murky one. The results of research on whether education (as measured by number of years of formal education received) decreases belief have been mixed. Sociologist Erich Goode3 has shown that educational attainment doesn’t necessarily reduce belief in supra-empirical ideas, but rather it appears to moderate it. Educated people tend to simply believe different (demonstrably false) things than less educated people. For example, in a study by Tom Rice, college educated individuals were more likely to believe in psychic healing and déjà vu, while those with only a high school education were more likely to believe in traditional religion and astrology.4 The Baylor Religion Survey found that individuals with less than a high school diploma were more likely to have consulted a psychic, while college graduates were more likely to claim an out-of-body experience.1 This suggests that rather than decreasing belief, education influences the nature of the beliefs a person holds (e.g., belief in homeopathy v. astrology).

Critical Thinking and Paranormal Belief
Given that educational attainment in general is not a prophylactic against holding supernatural or paranormal ideas, researchers have zeroed in on critical thinking training. However, research on critical thinking indicates that current training strategies in general do not necessarily decrease belief in the supernatural. An Austrian study that utilized both the Cornell Critical Thinking Test and Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal found no significant relation between these measures and belief in the paranormal. On the other hand, there is some evidence showing that individuals with an analytical cognitive style subscribe to distinctly less conventional views of God (e.g., deistic, pantheistic).5 Other research has shown that individuals usually endorse supernatural beliefs simply because of a perceived consensus among others that these beliefs are, in fact, justified.6, 7 Thus, individuals may not necessarily—or at least consistently—engage their critical faculties in the assessment of supernatural beliefs; they may evaluate only the probability of their truth given the beliefs of others in their environment, and choose to believe (or not) on that basis.

This paper provides some evidence in support of the view that critical thinking may be as social as it is psychological. For the most part teaching critical thinking has focused on imparting specific cognitive skills to an individual thinker. What many critical thinking seminars and college courses overlook is the role of “fitting in”—critical thought may be as much about avoiding judgment and punishment from others as it is about the deployment of some “toolbox” of thinking strategies.

Despite the commonly held view that being aware of our cognitive biases is useful in combating faulty thinking, we argue that critical thinking is not strictly a cognitive issue. Too much focus on the psychological aspects that influence critical thinking may obscure the role played by a strong need to be social and to fit in. We present a meta-analysis that combines the results of multiple peer-reviewed studies published over the last several decades that evaluate the success of teaching critical thinking strategies in the classroom. In addition, we discuss some reasons for their limited impact.

Revised Paranormal Belief Scale 9
Please put a number next to each item to indicate how much you agree or disagree with that item. Use the numbers as indicated below. There are no right or wrong answers. This is a sample of your own beliefs and attitudes. Thank you.

1 = Strongly Disagree 

2 = Moderately Disagree 

3 = Slightly Disagree 

4 = Uncertain 

5 = Slightly Agree 

6 = Moderately Agree 

7 = Strongly Agree

    1    The soul continues to exist though the body may die.
    2    Some individuals are able to levitate (lift) objects through mental forces.
    3    Black magic really exists.
    4    Black cats can bring bad luck.
    5    Your mind or soul can leave your body and travel (astral projection).
    6    The abominable snowman of Tibet exists.
    7    Astrology is a way to accurately predict the future.
    8    There is a devil.
    9    Psychokinesis, the movement of objects through psychic powers, does exist.
    10    Witches do exist.
    11    If you break a mirror, you will have bad luck.
    12    During altered states, such as sleep or trances, the spirit can leave the body.
    13    The Loch Ness monster of Scotland exists.
    14    The horoscope accurately tells a person’s future.
    15    I believe in God
    16    A person’s thoughts can influence the movement of a physical object.
    17    Through the use of formulas and incantations, it is possible to cast spells on persons.
    18    The number “13” is unlucky.
    19    Reincarnation does occur.
    20    There is life on other planets.
    21    Some psychics can accurately predict the future.
    22    There is a heaven and a hell.
    23    Mind reading is not possible
    24    There are actual cases of witchcraft.
    25    It is possible to communicate with the dead.
    26    Some people have an unexplained ability to predict the future.
Note: Item 23 is reversed for scoring.


Data and Methods
The purpose of this research is to consider the effectiveness of college courses in reducing belief in the paranormal and supernatural. These courses all had one or more of the following primary objectives: (1) to teach what science is, (2) to teach how to distinguish science from pseudoscience, and/or (3) how to think critically about new information. Our search criteria included peer-reviewed empirical studies that: (1) measured belief in the paranormal pre- and post-course content, (2) took place at a university or college within the United States, and (3) in most cases, also measured critical thinking pre- and postcourse content. One caveat to this last criterion is that although the critical thinking tests used were not the same across studies (e.g., Cornell Critical Thinking Test v. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal) they were all administered for the same purpose (i.e., to measure critical thinking) and have been independently statistically validated by other empirical work.

Each of the courses utilized in these studies took a slightly different approach and placed a different degree of emphasis on various paranormal phenomena. For example, course titles included: “Parapsychology,” “Science & Pseudoscience,” “Paranormal Phenomena,” “Paranormal Statistics,” “Research Methods in Psychology,” and “Psychology of Critical Thinking.” Researchers from each study gave students a survey to measure their belief in the paranormal (e.g., using the Paranormal Belief Scale) before and after exposure to the course content. Although research exists on the relation between critical thinking and religious belief 8, we were more interested in how successful college level courses specifically designed to increase critical thinking were in decreasing belief in the paranormal (though “traditional religious beliefs” is one of seven subcategories measured in the Paranormal Belief Scale [PBS]9 that many researchers use).

We were able to collect statistics for only eight courses10 that measured the magnitude and direction of the change in paranormal belief. No other studies matched the search criteria listed above. Of the courses that did match, most had been taken by psychology undergraduates, and the studies contained significance tests to determine if paranormal belief scores changed in a statistically significant way after students were exposed to the course content. Basically they asked the question “Did the students’ general belief in paranormal phenomena decline?” In five out of those eight studies, critical thinking was also measured both pre- and postcourse.11 The significance tests in these studies answered the additional question: “Did the students’ critical thinking scores increase?” We were most interested to see if belief in the paranormal decreased along with an increase in critical thinking ability. With the few studies that met our criteria we conducted meta-analytic procedures that converted the significance tests to correlations between the pre- and post-scores. This allowed us to combine and contrast the studies as well as ascertain the strength of the relation between the preand post-change in scores.

Results
The first set of analyses explored whether or not these courses decreased students’ paranormal belief. The second set examined whether or not critical thinking scores increased.

First, the average effect size associated with a change in level of belief in paranormal phenomena pre- and post-course content was r=.67 which is very high, and statistically significant. The students’ purported belief in the paranormal declined significantly and substantially from the time they started the course to the time it ended. The reduction in paranormal belief was so significant that over 200 studies showing no such relationship would need to exist in order for these results to be statistically questionable.12 Therefore, it appears that these courses decrease purported belief, at least in the short term.

On the other hand, the average effect size associated with a change in critical thinking, as opposed to paranormal belief pre- and post-course content was r=.08. This tiny correlation wasn’t statistically significant—that is, this effect may well have shown up by mere chance. Taken together, we find that although students’ paranormal beliefs decline by the end of a course, their actual ability to think critically exhibits no corresponding increase. This suggests that they did not abandon paranormal beliefs because they became better critical thinkers.

It also suggests there may be other variables lurking here: tribal identity and social inclusion.

The Social Dimension of Critical Thinking
There are several reasons why students may report decreased levels of paranormal belief despite little or no increase in critical thinking. First, a caveat. It is possible that these students have actually employed their new critical thinking “toolkits” in the service of reducing paranormal beliefs, and that, for whatever reason, this increase simply wasn’t picked up in post-testing. However, this is highly unlikely to have occurred consistently across five studies. What more likely occurred is what we suggested above—a reduction in paranormal belief without any parallel increase in critical thinking ability.

Social Mechanisms
Why did paranormal beliefs decrease across these studies without an increase in critical thinking? We suggest three social mechanisms. First, the content of these courses might have raised more cognitive dissonance for some individuals than typical course content in psychology and philosophy. Calling upon students in an introductory course to question their “sacred” views on karma, astrology, spiritual healing and the like is probably more emotionally complicated than learning about Freud or Socrates. As a result, students may disengage from the course (consciously or not) and experience something akin to apathy. They may report a decrease in paranormal belief simply because they know this is what the course was designed to do. And they want to avoid the discomfort created by the introduction of conflicting new material— they just don’t want to think about it. While it seems desirable that they reported that their belief in the paranormal has declined that may be entirely motivated by apathy, due to a mildly uncomfortable social environment (in this case, the course and the classroom).

A second social mechanism might be fear of group exclusion. A classroom (or critical thinking “workshop”) is intrinsically hierarchical. In these instances, a leader (e.g., professor or organizer) disseminates knowledge about how to think to a group of students, who are expected to understand the information and internalize it as true. In this kind of social environment, hierarchies are rigid—there is a teacher and there are learners. In such a setting, self-reported beliefs may not be reliable if they simply reflect fear of reprisal or punishment for disagreeing with the views of the teacher and class. Fear of punishment or of ostracism may motivate students to report lower levels of paranormal belief at the end of the class. They may also be motivated by a powerful need for social inclusion, acceptance, and rewards—to “fit in” with a class that, it is assumed, tacitly endorses the professors’ views as the correct ones. Unlike the socially-induced apathy described above, fear of social exclusion may actually be sufficient to change the beliefs of students. Fear of reprisal or punishment may be enough to motivate genuine belief change. But such a belief change would be emotionally motivated, without the need for developing a critical thinking “toolbox.”

The third social mechanism is related to the second. In social environments with a rigid hierarchy (such as classrooms or workshops), students might report reduced beliefs in the paranormal simply due to an appeal to the authority of the hierarchy. That is, students might report lower levels of paranormal belief because they believe authority figures in general (i.g., professors) tend to be correct, whether or not the student understands the reasons for this (i.e., the professor’s supposed superior level of critical thinking). The appeal to authority is also a social environment mechanism because the professor is almost always the sole authority in the environment. If classrooms had two professors instead of one, and each had a different opinion about the validity of paranormal beliefs students might have responded differently. Again, it isn’t necessary that students learn to think critically in order to jettison supernatural beliefs. They could simply be responding to a generalized trust of authority figures.

If any one of the above mechanisms is operating in these classrooms or workshops, student belief in the paranormal will likely return to its original level as soon as they are removed from: (1) an environment that makes them apathetic, (2) an environment that ties critical thinking to social inclusion, or (3) an environment that contains an authority figure who promotes critical thinking about paranormal beliefs. Thus observed decreases in paranormal belief among students who take courses aimed at increasing critical thinking may be real in the short term, but not in the long term. Further study is required to understand how best to teach critical thinking that more permanently reduces belief in the paranormal and supernatural.

Cancer: The Emperor of All Maladies

Anyone who knows me, knows of my own history with this stuff. You only have to look through my old posts to learn what I went through. I'm happy to say it is long behind me.
Check this out. It's worth your time. 

Cancer: The Emperor of All Maladies

Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise

Why the brain believes something is real when it is not
Nov 17, 2008

From Scientific American, December, 2008

Why do people see faces in nature, interpret window stains as human figures, hear voices in random sounds generated by electronic devices or find conspiracies in the daily news? A proximate cause is the priming effect, in which our brain and senses are prepared to interpret stimuli according to an expected model. UFOlogists see a face on Mars. Religionists see the Virgin Mary on the side of a building. Paranormalists hear dead people speaking to them through a radio receiver. Conspiracy theorists think 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration. Is there a deeper ultimate cause for why people believe such weird things? There is. I call it “patternicity,” or the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise.

Traditionally, scientists have treated patternicity as an error in cognition. A type I error, or a false positive, is believing something is real when it is not (finding a nonexistent pattern). A type II error, or a false negative, is not believing something is real when it is (not recognizing a real pattern—call it “apat­ternicity”). In my 2000 book How We Believe (Times Books), I argue that our brains are belief engines: evolved pattern-recognition machines that connect the dots and create meaning out of the patterns that we think we see in nature. Sometimes A really is connected to B; sometimes it is not. When it is, we have learned something valuable about the environment from which we can make predictions that aid in survival and reproduction. We are the ancestors of those most successful at finding patterns. This process is called association learning, and it is fundamental to all animal behavior, from the humble worm C. elegans to H. sapiens.

Unfortunately, we did not evolve a Baloney Detection Network in the brain to distinguish between true and false patterns. We have no error-detection governor to modulate the pattern-recognition engine. (Thus the need for science with its self-correcting mechanisms of replication and peer review.) But such erroneous cognition is not likely to remove us from the gene pool and would therefore not have been selected against by evolution.

In a September paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, “The Evolution of Superstitious and Superstition-like Behaviour,” Harvard University biologist Kevin R. Foster and University of Helsinki biologist Hanna Kokko test my theory through evolutionary modeling and demonstrate that whenever the cost of believing a false pattern is real is less than the cost of not believing a real pattern, natural selection will favor patternicity. They begin with the formula pb > c, where a belief may be held when the cost (c) of doing so is less than the probability (p) of the benefit (b). For example, believing that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is only the wind does not cost much, but believing that a dangerous predator is the wind may cost an animal its life.

The problem is that we are very poor at estimating such probabilities, so the cost of believing that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind is relatively low compared with the opposite. Thus, there would have been a beneficial selection for believing that most patterns are real.

Through a series of complex formulas that include additional stimuli (wind in the trees) and prior events (past experience with predators and wind), the authors conclude that “the inability of individuals—human or otherwise—to assign causal probabilities to all sets of events that occur around them will often force them to lump causal associations with non-causal ones. From here, the evolutionary rationale for superstition is clear: natural selection will favour strategies that make many incorrect causal associations in order to establish those that are essential for survival and reproduction.”

In support of a genetic selection model, Foster and Kokko note that “predators only avoid nonpoisonous snakes that mimic a poisonous species in areas where the poisonous species is common” and that even such simple organisms as “Escherichia coli cells will swim towards physiologically inert methylated aspartate presumably owing to an adaptation to favour true aspartate.”

Such patternicities, then, mean that people believe weird things because of our evolved need to believe nonweird things.

Note: This article was originally published with the title, “Patternicity".
Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com) and author of Why People Believe Weird Things. 

Hillary Clinton: What if former secretary of state will never respect our laws?

This is just my opinion, but I neither like nor trust this woman. She has a history of elitism and has an ego that would fill an auditorium, and with a husband (slick Willie), they make a team I would never want to see anywhere near the White House ever again.
I hate politics and normally don't speak out about things like this, but this is a manifestation of what is the worst of Washington, and the people we look to for representation.
I still don't understand why people don't see her for what she is. Maybe I never will.

Hillary Clinton

Updated News


Hillary's Coattail Political Career

What Does “Supernatural” Mean, Anyway?

 This is a reprint from eSkeptic magazine, March 18, 2015.

 BY MICHAEL SHERMER

Ever since my Scientific American column appeared last year about the anomalous experience my wife Jennifer and I had on our wedding day involving her grandfather’s long-dead radio that mysteriously began to play music at an opportune moment (never active again), much discussion has ensued regarding the implications for belief in the supernatural, for which I penned a longer explanation and analysis on Slate. In a March 5 New York Times essay Tanya Luhrmann wrote about her own experience involving a bicycle light that mysteriously melted in her backpack, she concluded “Who’s to say that this had some natural explanation rather than a numinous one?” In response I wrote a letter to the editor at the New York Times, which they published on March 10:

To the Editor:

Re “When Things Happen That You Can’t Explain” (Op-Ed, March 5): T. M. Luhrmann opines that when things happen that cannot be explained, it opens the door for the possibility of supernatural or paranormal phenomena being real. She cites several examples of powerful personal experiences that people have had, including my own, which I recounted in my Scientific American column.

As interesting as such experiences are to read about, from a scientific perspective they mean nothing because there is no such thing as the paranormal or the supernatural. There is just the normal, the natural and mysteries we have yet to solve with normal and natural explanations. Until such time as we can provide natural explanations for apparently supernatural phenomena, we need do nothing with such stories because in science we will never be able to explain everything.

There is always a residue of unexplained phenomena, and in science it is O.K. to simply say “I don’t know” and leave it at that. Unexplained does not equal supernatural.

The always insightful biologist and skeptic Jerry Coyne wrote an analysis of both Luhrmann’s essay and my letter in which he concluded:

I mostly agree with what Shermer said, although part of the letter is confusing: “there is no such thing as the paranormal or the supernatural.” One could take that as a tautology: that such phenomena, because they can be investigated by the tools of science and reason, must be natural by definition, as they’re part of nature. But I think Shermer means more than that: that there is a natural explanation for everything that seems paranormal or supernatural. While everything we know about what happens in the cosmos supports this conclusion, it’s still logically possible that there is a God—a supernatural being—who uses forces outside of nature to interact with the world. If that were true, those interactions would not have “normal and natural explanations.” (I find the paranormal a bit more “natural-ish”, since if we could, say, move objects with our minds, there would almost have to be some natural but unexplained reason for that.)

Jerry makes a good point here, but let me add one final point on the matter as it seems to turn on what one means by “supernatural” and “paranormal”.

When I say that “there is no such thing as the paranormal or the supernatural,” I mean that these words are just linguistic placeholders to talk about something for which we do not as yet have a normal or natural explanation. Analogously, when cosmologists talk about “dark energy” and “dark matter” they don’t mean those words to be an explanation, only linguistic placeholders until they figure out what exactly is causing the as-yet unsolved mysteries (rotation of galaxies, accelerating expansion of the cosmos). But whereas cosmologists do not stop searching for the underlying mechanisms of the observed phenomena just because they have a label, religious believers and New Agers treat words like “paranormal” and “supernatural” (or “miracle”) as if they were causal explanations.

If it turned out that, say, people really could read other peoples’ minds and that they were able to do so because inside our neurons are tiny microtubules in which quantum effects happen that allow thoughts (patterns of neural firing) to be transferred from one skull to another at any distance (like “spooky action at a distance” effects that quantum physicists have measured in experiments), that would not be ESP or PSI, and we wouldn’t need to call it a “paranormal” effect because we would then know that the ability to read minds was due to the properties of neurons and atoms, and it would be subsumed under the sciences of neuroscience and/or quantum physics (quantum neuroscience?). (This is, by the way, an actual theory.)

As for the possibility that a God could be using other forces, “forces outside of nature to interact with the world” as Jerry says, if a God did that (through intercessory prayer, miracles, or whatever) in a way we could measure the effects of such interactions, wouldn’t that mean that God must be using forces measurable by our scientific instruments? Here I am reminded of the analogy drawn by the great British astronomer Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington in his classic 1958 book The Philosophy of Physical Science:

Let us suppose that an ichthyologist is exploring the life of the ocean. He casts a net into the water and brings up a fishy assortment. Surveying his catch, he proceeds in the usual manner of a scientist to systematize what it reveals. He arrives at two generalizations:  

    1    No sea-creature is less than two inches long.
    2    All sea-creatures have gills.

In applying this analogy, the catch stands for the body of knowledge which constitutes physical science, and the net for the sensory and intellectual equipment which we use in obtaining it. The casting of the net corresponds to observations.

An onlooker may object that the first generalization is wrong. “There are plenty of sea-creatures under two inches long, only your net is not adapted to catch them.” The ichthyologist dismisses this objection contemptuously. “Anything uncatchable by my net is ipso facto outside the scope of ichthyological knowledge, and is not part of the kingdom of fishes which has been defined as the theme of ichthyological knowledge. In short, what my net can’t catch isn’t fish.” (1958, p. 16)

Extending the analogy beyond the physical sciences to all fields, regardless of what forces a God may use outside of our universe, if he’s interacting with our universe in a way we can measure it, then he must be using forces measurable by scientific instruments or our senses, so by definition they must be natural. What our scientific nets catch are natural fish. If one were to argue that God’s forces are non-natural (or supernatural) and they can still effect the world but in a non-measurable way (because our scientific nets only catch natural fish), then what’s the difference between an invisible God and a nonexistent God?

Five Simple Ways to Combat Sugar Cravings

From  INH Health Watch



Sugar is the most dangerous ingredient in the standard American diet (SAD). Health Watch readers know eating it causes major health problems…like cancer. And it’s not just deadly… It’s addicting. Based on brain scans, it’s as addictive as cocaine according to one 60 Minutes report.

Giving it up can seem hard. But there are some tricks you can do that will help.
Here are five simple ways to combat sugar cravings:

1. Get More Protein: Foods high in protein will keep you full longer. This helps derail cravings of any kind. Eating more protein also promotes healthy insulin and glucose activity. This doesn’t just prevent diabetes… It may keep you from sneaking something sweet.
When you can’t get cookies off your mind, reach for a bag of nuts instead. Pistachios or cashews are great choices. And it’s not just their protein content that will help you avoid sugar....


2. Eat a Fatty Snack: Healthy fats help balance your hormones, like serotonin. But if those levels aren’t in check, it fuels sugar cravings. And that can also affect your mood. Eating more sugar might feel like a quick fix…but it’s only making things worse.

Next time you’re feeling hungry before dinner, try a high-fat natural snack. Cut up avocado slices and eat them plain. Or pair it with a poached egg. They’re both rich sources of good fats. Fatty nuts and olives also make good snacks.


3. Use More Spices: Sweet spices like clove and cardamom can help fill the need for something sugary. It makes you feel satisfied. Many of these spices also help manage blood glucose levels.

Get creative with your spices. Sprinkle them in your coffee in place of sugar. Add them to your salad. Pairing them up creates new tastes. But it also means getting even more health benefits.

4. Increase Your Magnesium Intake: A magnesium deficiency triggers sugar cravings. And it’s no surprise… This mineral helps regulate glucose, insulin, and dopamine levels. An imbalance of any of these can make your body want sugar.

Spinach is an excellent source of magnesium. Gently steam it and serve it as a side. Throw in some chopped almonds to add even more of this mineral.

5. Drink More Water: Dehydration can bring on sugary urges. That’s because your body is in search of energy sources. This can also put your body into stress mode…one of the leading causes of cravings. But drinking water will help fix that.

You can better fulfill your craving by adding flavor. Try lemon wedges. They’re high in potassium. Combining them with water can boost brain power. You might also want to try dropping in a few cucumber slices. They’re loaded with disease-fighting nutrients.
Have a water bottle handy wherever you go. Carry a bag of mixed nuts with you. If those sweet cravings hit, you’re prepared. Before you know it, they may vanish for good.

Volvo auto brake test fail

Volvo's Collision Warning with Auto Brake (CWAB) developed in cooperation with Mobileye N.V. was introduced on the 2007 Volvo S80. This system is powered by a radar/camera fusion and provides a warning through a Head-Up Display that visually resembles brake lamps. If the driver does not react, the system pre-charges the brakes and increases the brake assist sensitivity to maximize driver braking performance.

Notice that the airbag didn't deploy either.

I hope they got all the bugs worked out of this one!

Volvo's Collision Warning with Auto Brake

Mummy mystery lingers on daunting Mexico peak

Strange... I climbed this peak in the early 90s. Who would have guess that there were 30 year old mummies buried in the snow below our feet.

Mummies in Mexico

Association for Biblical Astronomy

I find it incredible that there are people who still think like this.
Could it possibly be engineers, scientists, and astronomers have been completely wrong for the last 400 years? You tell me.

Geocentricity

Graham: ‘You Can Have Every Email I’ve Ever Sent — I’ve Never Sent One’

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says he's never communicated by email. The article doesn't mention that he's a member of the subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law.

Yeah, this sounds about right.

Senator Lindsey Graham

Perception

This was posted on the Thinking Athiest Facebook page. 

It says a lot of how athiests are often perceived.

 

Time for a little levity

A friend of mine pointed this out to me. I just had to share it.
Enjoy a minute or two of Irish humor and smile.

Old ladies with spray glue
 
Actually, I laughed harder the second time I watched it.

Thing charger

Now I don't have a great need for something like this, but I know plenty of people that do. It is interesting and might just be a useful tool if you have plenty of electronics needing a periodic charge.

Check it out.

Thing Charger