# data[].attributes.headline
Results can't be reproduced or verified. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Results can't be reproduced or verified. 

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Results can't be reproduced or verified.

The definition of results can't be reproduced or verified means some sort of findings or claims that are missing evidence. This makes it impossible to know if these stories or pieces of history are true or fake. For example the Ark of the Convent.

Connection:

These lost treasures are some huge key details in ancient history that are missing. The result in them missing brings out speculation in people who ether believe or doesn't believe all because of the missing information. This results in not being able to repeat the process or check if the stories are accurate or even true.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author Bio

Owen Jarus, Live Science Contributor

Owen Jarus writes about archaeology and all things about humans' past for Live Science. Owen has a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Toronto and a journalism degree from Ryerson University. He enjoys reading about new research and is always looking for a new historical tale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
30 of the World's Most Valuable Treasures That Are Still Missing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some of these treasures are now likely destroyed, including the Ark of the Covenant, but some may still exist and be recovered - such as the crown jewels of Ireland, a 333-carat pink diamond and mysterious treasure depicted in a Dead Sea Scroll.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Does not process.

Does not process means something that is based on proven facts or real evidence and can be proved through scientific tests or methods to be true.

connection:

The article explains how physics works and backs up all its answers. An example of this is an object is thrown up into the air and falls because of.. gravity. Why isn't' explained under pseudoscience with the math calculations instead of just gravity. Does not process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Physics is the scientific study of matter and energy and how they interact with each other. This energy can take the form of motion, light, electricity, radiation, gravity - just about anything, honestly. Physics deals with matter on scales ranging from sub-atomic particles (i.e. the particles that make up the atom and the particles that make up those particles) to stars and even entire galaxies.

How Physics Works

As an experimental science, physics utilizes the scientific method to formulate and test hypotheses that are based on observation of the natural world. The goal of physics is to use the results of these experiments to formulate scientific laws, usually expressed in the language of mathematics, which can then be used to predict other phenomena.

When you talk about theoretical physics, you are speaking of the area of physics that is focused on developing these laws and using them to extrapolate into new predictions. These predictions from theoretical physicists then create new questions that experimental physicists then develop experiments to test. In this way, the theoretical and experimental components of physics (and science in general) interact with each other and push each other forward to develop new areas of knowledge.

The Role of Physics in Other Fields of Science

In a broader sense, physics can be seen as the most fundamental of the natural sciences. Chemistry, for example, can be viewed as a complex application of physics, as it focuses on the interaction of energy and matter in chemical systems. We also know that biology is, at its heart, an application of chemical properties in living things, which means that it is also, ultimately, ruled by the physical laws.

Of course, we don't think of these other fields as part of physics. When we investigate something scientifically, we look for patterns at the scale that is most appropriate. Though every living thing is acting in a way that is fundamentally driven by the particles of which it is composed, trying to explain an entire ecosystem in terms of the behavior of fundamental particles would be diving into an unhelpful level of detail. Even when looking at the behavior of a liquid, we look in general at the properties of the fluid as a whole through fluid dynamics, rather than paying particular attention to the behavior of the individual particles.

Major Concepts in Physics

Because physics covers so much area, it is divided into several specific fields of study, such as electronics, quantum physics, astronomy, and biophysics.

Why Is Physics (Or Any Science) Important?

Physics includes the study of astronomy, and in many ways, astronomy was humanity's first organized field of science. Ancient peoples looked to the stars and recognized patterns there, then began using mathematical precision to make predictions about what would happen in the heavens based on those patterns. Whatever flaws there were in these specific predictions, the method of trying to understand the unknown was a worthy one.

Trying to understand the unknown is still a central problem in human life. Despite all of our advancements in science and technology, being a human being means that you are able to understand some things and also that there are things you do not understand. Science teaches you a methodology for approaching the unknown and asking questions that get to the heart of what is unknown and how to make it known.

Physics, in particular, focuses on some of the most fundamental of questions about our physical universe. Pretty much the only more fundamental questions that could be asked fall in the philosophical realm of "metaphysics" (named for being literally "beyond physics'), but the problem is that these questions are so fundamental that many of the questions in the metaphysical realm remain unresolved even after centuries or millennia of inquiry by most of history's greatest minds. Physics, on the other hand, has resolved many fundamental issues, even though those resolutions tend to open up whole new types of questions.

For more on this subject, check out " Why Study Physics?" (adapted, with permission, from the book Why Science? by James Trefil).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Physics is the scientific study of matter and energy and how they interact with each other. This energy can take the form of motion, light, electricity, radiation, gravity - just about anything, honestly. Physics deals with matter on scales ranging from sub-atomic particles (i.e.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Money is often involved.

A business or some sort of organization where they make profit off something like a product, service or ideas where They don't have enough proof to back them up or guarantee that they are going to work.

connection:

The article is about "get rich quick" schemes and the question everyone wants to know which is if they work or not. The get rich quick schemes are ideas that are sold for profit that don't necessarily work or aren't one hundred precent accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get rich quick schemes often come with grand promises and little substance. They range from MLM to cryptocurrency to dubious online business ventures.

# data[].attributes.headline
Red flag #2 Confusion of Correlation with Causation

# data[].attributes.subject
Red flag #2 Confusion of Correlation with Causation

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Confusion of Correlation with Causation.

Confusion of Correlation with Causation is where someone believes that because two things happened at the same time that they are related to each other. Example: Ice cream sales go up and then murder rates go up at the same time. Sounds silly but people might believe these to events are related.

connection:

Article talks about some of the big Confusion of Correlation with Causation in celebrities and just in general. It talks about how sometimes these Confusion of Correlation with Causation turn into almost like a superstitions. Example: The NBA player who use to sleep with the opposites teams game shorts the night before every game or the retired NHL hockey player who would dump his stick into the toilet if he was having some rough games.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Because the human brain tends to seek out causal relationships, scientists are extra careful about creating highly controlled experiments - but they still make mistakes. Here are ten examples illustrating how hard it is to identify causation.

10. The Trouble With Henry (and Hawthorne)

People are a pain to research. They react not only to the stimulus being studied, but also to the experiment itself. Researchers today try to design experiments to control for such factors, but that wasn't always the case.

Take the Hawthorne Works in Cicero, Illinois. In a series of experiments from 1924 to 1932, researchers studied worker productivity effects associated with altering the Illinois factory's environment, including changing light levels, tidying up the place and moving workstations around.

Just when they thought they were on to something, they noticed a problem: The observed increases in productivity dropped almost as soon as the researchers left the works, indicating that the workers' knowledge of the experiment - not the researchers' changes - had fueled the boost. Researchers still call this phenomenon the Hawthorne Effect [source: Obrenović].

A related concept, the John Henry effect, occurs when members of a control group try to beat the experimental group by kicking their efforts into overdrive. They need not know about the experiment; they need only see one group receive new tools or additional instruction. Like the steel-driving man of legend, they want to prove their capabilities and earn respect [sources: Saretsky; Vogt].

9. Always Bet on Black?

The titular characters of Tom Stoppard's film " Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" begin the film baffled and finally frightened as each of 157 consecutive flips of a coin comes up heads. Guildenstern's explanations of this phenomenon range from time loops to "a spectacular vindication of the principle that each individual coin, spun individually, is as likely to come down heads as tails ... "

Evolution wired humans to see patterns, and our ability to properly process that urge seems to short-circuit the longer we spend gambling. We can rationally accept that independent events like coin flips keep the same odds no matter how many times you perform them.

But we also view those events, less rationally, as streaks, making false mental correlations between randomized events. Viewing the past as prelude, we keep thinking the next flip ought to be tails.

Statisticians call this the gambler's fallacy, aka the Monte Carlo fallacy, after a particularly illustrative example that occurred in that famed Monaco resort town.

During the summer of 1913, bettors watched in increasing amazement as a casino's roulette wheel landed on black 26 times in a row. Inflamed by the certainty that red was "due," the punters kept plunking down their chips. The casino made a mint [sources: Lehrer; Oppenheimer and Monin; Vogt].

8. The Hot Hand and the Monkey's Paw

No discussion of streaks, magical thinking or false causation would be complete without a flip through the sports pages. Stellar sports seasons arise from such a mysterious interplay of factors - natural ability, training, confidence, the occasional X factor - that we imagine patterns in performance, even though studies repeatedly reject streak shooting and "successful" superstitions as anything more than imaginary.

The belief in streaks or slumps implies that success "causes" success and failure "causes" failure or, perhaps more reasonably, that variation in some common factor, such as confidence, causes both. But study after study fails to bear this out [source: Gilovich, et al].

The same holds true for superstitions, although that never stopped retired NBA player and Dallas Mavericks guard Jason Terry from sleeping in the opposing teams' game shorts before each game, or NHL center and retired Ottawa Senators player Bruce Gardiner from dunking his hockey stick in the toilet to break the occasional slump [source: Exact Sports].

The sophomore slump, too, typically arises from a too-good first year. Performance swings tend to even out in the long run, a phenomenon statisticians call regression toward the mean [source: Barnett, et al]. In sports, this averaging out is aided by the opposition, which adjusts to counter the new player's successful skill set.

7. Hormonal Imbalance

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in statistics, but sometimes - in epidemiology, for example - ethical and practical considerations force researchers to analyze available cases.

Unfortunately, such observational studies risk bias, hidden variables and, worst of all, study groups that might not accurately reflect the population. Studying a representative sample is vital; it allows researchers to apply results to people outside of the study, like the rest of us.

A case in point: hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for women. Beyond treating symptoms associated with menopause, it was once hailed for potentially reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, thanks to a much-ballyhooed 1991 observational study [source: Stampfer and Colditz].

But later randomized controlled studies, including the large-scale Women's Health Initiative, revealed either a negative relationship, or a statistically insignificant one, between HRT and CHD [source: Lawlor, et al.].

Why the difference? For one thing, women who use HRT tend to come from higher socioeconomic strata and receive better quality of diet and exercise - a hidden explanatory relationship for which the observational study failed to fully account [source: Lawlor, et al].

6. Super Bowl Stock Market Shuffle

In 1978, sports reporter and columnist Leonard Koppett mocked the causation-correlation confusion by wryly suggesting that Super Bowl outcomes could predict the stock market. It backfired: Not only did people believe him, but it worked - with frightful frequency.

The proposal, now commonly known as the Super Bowl Indicator, went as follows: If one of the 16 original National Football League teams - those in existence before the NFL's 1966 merger with the American Football League - won the Super Bowl, the stock market would rise throughout the rest of the year. If a former AFL team won, it would go down [source: Bonsal].

From 1967 to 1978, Koppett's system went 12 for 12; up through 1997, it boasted a 95 percent success rate. It stumbled during the dot-com era (1998-2001) and notably in 2008, when the Great Recession hit, despite a win by the New York Giants (NFC). Still, as of 2022, the indicator had a 73 percent success rate [source: Chen].

Some have argued that the pattern exists, driven by belief; it works, they say, because investors believe it does, or because they believe that other investors believe it.

This notion, though clever in a regressive sort of way, hardly explains the 12 years of successful correlations predating Koppett's article. Others argue that a more relevant pattern lies in the stock market's large-scale upward trend, barring some short-term major and minor fluctuations [source: Johnson].

5. Big Data, Little Clarity

Big data - the process of looking for patterns in data sets so large they resist traditional methods of analysis - rates big buzz in the boardroom [source: Arthur]. But is bigger always better?

It's a rule that's drummed into most researchers in their first stats class: When encountering a sea of data, resist the urge to go on a fishing expedition. Given enough data, patience and methodological leeway, correlations are almost inevitable, if unethical and largely useless.

After all, the mere correlation between two variables does not imply causation; nor does it, in many cases, point to much of a relationship.

For one thing, researchers cannot use statistical measures of correlation willy-nilly; each contains certain assumptions and limitations that fishing expeditions too often ignore, to say nothing of the hidden variables, sampling problems and flaws in interpretation that can gum up a poorly designed study.

But big data is increasingly being used and hailed for its invaluable contributions to areas such as creating customized learning programs; wearable devices that provide real-time feed to your electronic health records; and music streaming services that give you targeted recommendations [source: IntelliPaat]. Just don't expect too much out of big data in the causality department.

4. Minimum Wage Equals Maximum Unemployment

Any issue dealing with money is bound to be deeply divisive and highly politicized, and minimum wage increases are no exception. The arguments are varied and complex, but essentially one side contends that a higher minimum wage hurts businesses, which drives down job availability, which hurts the poor.

The other side responds that there's little evidence for this claim, and that the 76 million Americans working at or below minimum wage, which some argue is not a living wage, would benefit from such an increase. They argue that the federal minimum wage for covered, nonexempt employees ($7.25 per hour in September 2023) has lowered Americans' purchasing power by more than 20 percent [sources: U.S. Department of Labor; Cooper, et al].

As literary critic George Shaw reportedly quipped, "If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion," and the minimum-wage debate seems to bear that out [source: Quote Investigator]. For every analyst who says minimum wage increases drive jobs away, there is another who argues against such a correlation.

In the end, both sides share a fundamental problem: namely, the abundance of anecdotal evidence many of their talking heads rely on for support. Secondhand stories and cherry-picked data make for weak tea in any party, even when presented in pretty bar charts.

3. Breakfast Beats Obesity, Dinner Denies Drugs

Between fitness apps, drugs and surgeries, weight loss in the United States is a $78 billion-per-year industry, with millions of Americans bellying up to the weight-loss bar annually [source: Research and Markets]. Not surprisingly, weight loss studies - good, bad or ugly - get a lot of press in the U.S.

Take the popular idea that eating breakfast beats obesity, a sugar-frosted nugget derived from two main studies: One, a 1992 Vanderbilt University randomized controlled study, showed that reversing normal breakfast habits, whether by eating or not eating, correlated with weight loss; the other, a 2002 observational study by the National Weight Control Registry, correlated breakfast-eating with successful weight-losers - which is not the same as correlating it with weight loss [sources: Brown, et al.; Schlundt, et al.; Wyatt, et al.].

Unfortunately, the NWCR study failed to control for other factors - or, indeed, establish any causal connection from its correlation. For example, a person who wants to lose weight might work out more, eat breakfast or go whole-hog protein, but without an experimental design capable of dialing in causal links, such behaviors amount to nothing more than commonly co-occurring characteristics [source: Brown, et al].

A similar problem plagues the numerous studies linking family dinners with a decreased risk of drug addiction for teens. Although attractive for their simple, appealing strategy, these studies frequently fail to control for related factors, such as strong family connections or deep parental involvement in a child's life [source: Miller, et al].

2. The Suicidal Sex

We often hear that men, especially young men, are more likely to commit suicide than are women. In truth, such statements partake of empirical generalization - the act of making a broad statement about a common pattern without attempting to explain it - and mask several known and potential confounding factors.

Take, for example, a Youth Risk Behaviors Survey from 2021 found that girls in grades 9-12 attempted suicide almost twice as often as male students (13 percent vs. 7 percent) [source: American Foundation for Suicide Prevention].

How, then, can a higher correlation exist between the opposite sex and suicide? The answer lies in suicide attempts by methodology: While the most common method of suicide for both sexes in 2020 was by firearm (57.9 percent for men and 33.0 percent for women), women were almost equally likely to die by poisoning or suffocation [source: National Institute of Mental Health].

Even if we could dispose of such confounding factors, the fact would remain that maleness, per se, is not a cause. To explain the trend, we need to instead identify factors common to men, or at least suicidal ones.

The same point applies to the comparatively high rates of suicide reported among divorced men. Divorce doesn't cause men to commit suicide; if anything, it's more indicative of an underlying causal relationship with factors such as male role inflexibility, their social networks, the increasing importance of child care and men's desire for control in relationships [source: Scourfield and Evans].

1. Vaccination Vexation

No correlation/causation list would be complete without discussing parental concerns over vaccination safety. Before the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world in 2020, the main issue was a fear among some parents that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination was causally linked to autism spectrum disorders. This notion was popularized by celebrities like Jenny McCarthy.

Despite the medical community debunking the 1998 Andrew Wakefield paper that inspired the falsehood, and despite subsequent studies showing no causal link, some parents remain fearful of an autism connection or other vaccine-related dangers [sources: Park; Sifferlin; Szabo].

Then COVID-19 arrived, and to date has killed millions around the globe. Scientists raced to create an effective vaccine and they succeeded; the first U.S. COVID-19 vaccine was available in December 2020 under the FDA's emergency use authorization [source: FDA]. But it also quickly became intertwined with the extreme polarization of U.S. politics and misinformation.

Many parents, especially Republicans, feared the vaccines were unsafe because they were developed so quickly, and because there might be as-yet-unknown long-term side effects. There were also incorrect fears about the vaccine affecting future fertility. Those have now been proven false [source: Kelen and Maragakis].

As of January 2022, just 28 percent of 5- to 11-year-olds had received at least one dose of the vaccine, disappointing many in the medical field [sources: Hamel, Kates]. The number of vaccinated children is growing; by May 2023, 40 percent of 5- to 11-year-olds had received at least done dose [source: CDC].

These are no harmless misunderstandings. Despite debunking a link between autism and childhood vaccines, many parents remain leery of the shots. In 2019, there were 1,282 cases of measles in 31 states, the highest number in the U.S. since 1992. The majority of these cases were among the unvaccinated [source: CDC].

Whether that correspondence is coincidental, correlative or causal is well worth considering. And the effects of the current COVID-19 vaccination hesitation remain to be seen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Causation vs. Correlation Explained With 10 Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back. Surely you know this jingle from childhood. It's a silly example of a correlation with no causation. But there are some real-world instances that we often hear, or maybe even tell?

# data[].attributes.body
Red flag definition all natural:

The term refers to anything that says its "all natural" most of the time it can be misleading like for example dietary foods or cleaning products.

Connection:

This article talks about the all natural cleaning products and how they are non-toxic and very safe to use. The only issues with "all natural" is there isn't any barriers. Like you couldn't drink any of these non toxic chemicals as they would harm you're insides but inhaling them and using them is more safe then you're usual toxic chemicals like bleach.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Proof By Verbosity is when making a claim sound better and appear more convincing to the audience which gives the illusion of thoroughness but doesn't prove anything.

Connection: This article is about chocolate being better then vanilla by describing it with there own opinions, and consistently overexplaining it to make it seem like its way better. This is Proof by verbosity

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: actions taken by governments or organizations to limit or censor information, typically for political, social, or security reasons

Connections: This man was said to make a car engine run off water, which would make the prices of gas no longer exists for cars and ruin the whole market, it would be revolutionary. This article speaks on how he randomly died, which could've been to silence him. This is a clear example of suppression by authorities.

# data[].attributes.body
Ideology: A thought of beliefs of how of how something should be organized - politically - liberalism, conservatism, environmentally and in other ways.

Connection: This article speaks on environmentalism and relates directly to the ideology. It speaks on the way of harmful human activities and all the political things related to this subject.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Emotional Connection is when someone has a deep feel or connection with said thing theyre talking about. This has lots of feelings within what they talk about and empathy

Connection: This women had her dog-best friend die and she shares her experiences with this dog and her grief in which and empath can feel her emotions through her writing. This is an example of emotional connection.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
My Dog Died and My Heart Is Broken: Hurt, Hope, and Healing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This writer can relate. Here’s one account of losing a beloved dog, how to grieve and heal.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Its when you observe something and then perceive it with the knowledge you have, basically observation is when u take in the info and perception is when u take that info and interpret it.

Connection: This article speaks on 5 boys who are wrongfully convicted for sexually assaulting a women and the eye witness was wrong about it the whole time because they perceived something that didnt happen, this is a connection.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About the Case | The Central Park Five | Ken Burns | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read a Q&A with the filmmakers of The Central Park Five.