%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |  This is a continuation of my blogging here at WdC |
|
This will be a blog for my writing, maybe with (too much) personal thrown in. I am hoping it will be a little more interactive, with me answering questions, helping out and whatnot. If it falls this year (2024), then I may stop the whole blogging thing, but that's all a "wait and see" scenario. An index of topics can be found here: "Writing Blog No.2 Index"  Feel free to comment and interact. |
| 7 Factual Assumptions Debunked When it comes to knowledge, there are many things that we know from school, hearing it often enough in the media, even hearing it from experts. Well, I am here to crap all over some of these beliefs. The Food Pyramid The food pyramid was created in the USA by pressure from food companies and certain interested groups. For example, dairy is actually not needed; calcium can be gained from meats and vegetables. Something being more important than something else was purely down to who had the money and influence. Make sure you get a good amount of vitamins and minerals (following the WHO guidelines, not those of the USFDA), have equal amounts of carbohydrates, proteins and fats, and do moderate exercise 3-4 times a week is all you need to be healthy. Here is an example of some of the issues. Unfortunately, the man who went through this (Keys) cherry-picked data and sources of data to “prove” that saturated fat caused heart disease. He had studies from 22 countries, but only used the data from 7 of them, he ignored smoking, sedentary lifestyles and sugar consumption. This myth persists. Saturated fat in excess is not good, don’t get me wrong… but so is everything in excess. Even the new My Plate has issues (dairy is still there instead of calcium foods, and the idea of protein foods is confused), but at least they’re trying. Negative Reinforcement Negative reinforcement is not punishing someone who does something wrong. It is the removal of a stimulus, particularly an undesirable stimulus. So, a teacher giving everyone a lollypop for doing well on a test is positive reinforcement, as you are adding a desired stimulus; a teacher telling the class they have no homework for doing well on a test is a negative reinforcement. If the children were given electric shocks for doing badly on a test, that would be punishment, and is something entirely different. Lie Detectors Polygraphs are not accurate. Sorry. In fact, law enforcement knows this, as they are not admissible in many courts. In Australia, they are simply not used or regarded. The problem is that when faced with a random polygraph test, a person can enter a panic state that makes them fail. See, polygraphs measure anxiety and the alleged science behind them is that lies make people anxious. But these people are not lying – they are just anxious. Yes, telling a lie makes someone anxious, but so does being accused of something they have not done. And especially being strapped into a bloody great machine! Caffeine, illness, tiredness and withdrawal symptoms all cause false positives on a polygraph test as well. People who claim they can tell if someone is lying through a polygraph are, well, lying. Law Of Averages We all know that flipping an evenly weighted coin should come up 50% heads and 50% tails, with each result a 1 in 2 chance. However, this also means that there is a 1 in 16 chance of four heads in a row. So, if we toss a coin and get 3 heads, then there should be a 15 in 16 chance of the next being a tail. Right? Well, no. It is still 1 in 2. This is because each coin toss is independent of the others. Independent events do not change their chance of happening because they are grouped in with other independent events. So, yes, while 4 heads in a row is improbable, each independent coin toss still has a 1 in 2 chance of producing a head. The results of the previous coin tosses do not change that simple fact. Here’s another example – a roulette wheel has 40 or so (I don’t gamble, I don’t know for sure, but I watch TV) slots. That means that every number should come up every 40 spins, right? And the idea that the same number comes up twice just cannot happen, right? Well, no on both. Each spin, each number has the same 1 in 40 chance of being landed on. Just because it landed on 25 on one spin does not mean it cannot land on 25 on the next. The chance is still 1 in 40. Relying on the law of averages is called The Gambler’s Fallacy… and looking for patterns like that leads to big losses. Evolution I do understand that some people refuse to accept this as a concept, and that’s fine. Ignoring and rejecting science is something people have always done, and I will just refuse to accept they are thinking properly. Evolution is the development of new traits in a creature that are passed down to subsequent generations if that trait turns out to be useful. Evolution does not have an end-goal of striving for something that is the best – evolution is a process by which organisms adapt to their environment. For example, flowers became colourful because the brighter ones originally gained the attention of the pollen-spreaders, and this brightness, over millions of years, became colour. That is simplified (evolution is very complex), but that’s the idea. And just because some members of a species develop a trait does not mean those that do not die out. Some finches have developed large bills to crack through seeds, but the original finches that eat other parts of a plant still exist. That small group had their trait and it worked for them, but the original group did not die out. The successful traits being passed on is the basis for natural selection. That is like me saying, “Well, me and my family exist, why do I still have fourth cousins?” Unless something happened to wipe them out, they will still be there. Yes, many original species do die off, but so do species without evolutionary successors. Nothing followed the Triceratops, for example. And I’ll add this here: “If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” is something people who have no understanding ask. First, read the previous paragraph. Second, man didn’t evolve from monkeys. Man and monkeys share a common proto-primate ancestor. Man and chimpanzees were the last to break apart, and the creature before them broke away from what became the great apes before that… and so on. Ancestors, not animals we see today. Theory A theory in science is an explanation that is based on evidence, both empirical and/or experimental, can be observed, and stands up to constant testing. A theory in science is something that is accepted and leads to the laws of science. A theory in philosophy is a rational look at an abstract concept with the hopes that this will explain it or offer an explanation. They are different. The confusion comes when things are called “sciences” that are not. Pseudoscience has the prefix “pseudo-“ (false) for a reason. They are baloney. You might believe in them. That’s great. But it is belief, not fact. And, no, anecdotal “evidence” is not factual evidence. There are a number of psychological phenomena to explain the vast majority of these happenings. But, still, confusing theory with guess leads to my theory that the person doing that needs to be better educated. We Use 10% Of Our Brains So, apparently, humans use only 10% of our brains. If we use it all, then we can get psychic powers! Only vegans can do this! Honestly! Not true. It has been disproved over and over again. Simply put, if we only used 10% of our brain, then brain injury would not create that great an issue. And why would evolution allow this? Brains use a lot of energy – if we only used 10% of them, we would have been over-run by chimpanzees ages ago. Or penguins. MRI scans have proved that most of our brains are in use all the time. Even when asleep, over half (that is more than 50%) of our brains are working. The human body is a stupidly complex machine. The brain is its CPU. Not using most of it makes no sense. I think 7 is enough. And I think this is another example of the Internet not being the be-all and end-all of everything. You will find all of these espoused online. That does not mean they are correct. Like every user-curated thing, the Internet is full of rubbish, especially where science is concerned. You need to do your research in actual places where the knowledge is tested, studied and curated properly by people who know, not your aunty who read it on Facebook. And, yes, I am fully aware that most of these things predate the Internet, and that brings me to my second point – don’t trust the media, like newspapers, either. Money talks and stupidity reigns, and the Internet is the latest bastion of both. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
thinking. 