# data[].attributes.body
Made by Mashal Naeem, working individually.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition
Appeal to authority is classified as one of the pseudoscience red flags. It is simply associated with attributing truth to a statement based on the authority of the speaker or on the authority of someone who supports the statement. in this case, truth is considered to be a function of power rather than objectivity. The reason why someone commits appeal to authority fallacy because when there is a recognized authority on a subject, people hesitate to question that person's statements. Even if we sense that person may be wrong about something, we assume she has considered the matter carefully in light of her expertise and has come to a specific conclusion.

Connection
Doctors and dentists are good authorities on health.  However some are significantly biased by large financial gains. The following picture represents a cigarette advertisement where the company chose to have picture of a dentist in the ad. The dentist is claiming that "Viceroys" brand cigarette filters the most smoke and he highly recommends to use this brand of cigarette. Retrieved from: http://www.appealtoauthority.info/home/media-examples

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3 Red Flag: Confusion of Correlation with Causation

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3 Red Flag: Confusion of Correlation with Causation

# data[].attributes.body
Definition
"Confusion of correlation with causation" is considered another red flag of pseudoscience. When two events are occurring together, they can be considered to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. But just because two quantities are correlated does not necessarily mean that one is directly causing the other to change. Correlation does not always imply causation, both of which are always confused together especially in statistical studies.

Connection
The following article shows a statistical study which can be considered a very good example of confusion with correlation and confusion: in a widely studied case, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But randomized controlled trials showed that HRT does not protect against CHD but rather it increases its incident.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Under its definition for the word 'hindsight' the Oxford English Dictionary includes the following statement 'hindsight is always better than foresight' ( http://dictionary.oed.com/), and the slogan of a private survey and evaluation company, ingeniously called Hindsight, is 'remember hindsight is always 20/20!' ( http://www.hndsight.com/). We have the benefit of the 'hindsight' from randomized controlled trials (RCT) when we comment on this meta-analysis of observational studies, but whether the conflicting results between the trial and observational evidence on the association between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use and coronary heart disease (CHD) will lead to 20/20 vision remains to be seen.

The disparity between findings from observational studies and RCT of the effects of HRT on CHD, has created considerable debate among researchers, practitioners and postmenopausal women. The authors of the meta-analysis reprinted in this issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology concluded that the pooled estimate of effect from the best quality observational studies (internally controlled prospective and angiographic studies) inferred a relative reduction of 50% with ever use of HRT and stated that 'overall, the bulk of the evidence strongly supports a protective effect of estrogens that is unlikely to be explained by confounding factors'. By contrast, recent randomized trials among both women with established CHD and healthy women have found HRT to be associated with slightly increased risk of CHD or null effects. For example, the large Women's Health Initiative (WHI) randomized trial found that the hazards ratio for CHD associated with being allocated to combined HRT was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.63), after 5.2 years of follow-up.

These marked differences between observational findings and trials are important for two reasons. First, and foremost, is the clinical impact. As another commentator on the same subject remarked:

'Does HRT decrease or increase the risk of heart disease? At least every woman, every gynecologist and every primary care doctor want to know the "correct" answer.'

Second, is the broader implication for observational epidemiology. Prior to the publication of the WHI it was suggested that well conducted observational studies produced similar estimates of treatment effects as RCT, and that the notion of a hierarchy of evidence with the RCT on top could not be supported. The differing results between observational studies and RCT in the association between HRT and CHD throw this idea into question and may signify the death of observational epidemiology. It is important, therefore, to determine why the results from the trials and observational studies are so different.

A number of explanations have been suggested for these disparities. Whilst some have suggested that the results of the trials were biased because of contamination, and in the case of the WHI, early termination of the arm assessing the effect of combined HRT, the consistency across a number of trials of a null effect make these explanations unlikely. More plausible explanations are that women who participated in the trials were importantly different from those who participated in the observational studies, or that the observational study results were confounded.

Changing goalposts

Once a hypothesis is shown to be shaky, the protagonists have several options: either dismiss the new evidence as inadequate, re-adjust the focus of the hypothesis, re-adjust their original data in order to fit with the new evidence or exceptionally, drop the hypothesis. Soon after publication of the RCT demonstrating no CHD benefits from taking HRT, re-analyses of the observational epidemiological data began to appear in attempts to demonstrate that the observational studies were not flawed but showed, essentially the same findings as the trials.

In one of their original publications, prior to the trial evidence, investigators from the Nurses' Health Study showed that the protective effect of HRT was stronger among women who were at highest risk. In June 1990, the FDA Advisory Committee were considering a request by drug companies to approve a label change that would permit prevention of heart disease to be included as an indication for hormone replacement use. Elizabeth Barrett-Connor told the committee that the label change should not be agreed without trial evidence. However, Meir Stampfer told the committee 'I believe that the data are quite substantial in showing a protective effect of estrogens for heart disease, and I believe that it is a cause and effect relationship'. The label change was approved ( http://www.curedisease.com/internal_medicine.pdf, page 15-16; last accessed 19 May 2004).

Following publication of the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) (a secondary prevention trial), in 1998, showing a 52% increased risk of CHD in the first year of use, the Nurse's Health Study investigators re-analysed their data examining effects of short-term use of HRT among 2489 women (drawn from the total sample of 121 700) with a prior history of cardiovascular disease and found a higher rate of recurrent events, the opposite of what they had claimed earlier, but now fitting with the trial data. Co-incident with publication of the WHI a re-analysis of observational data demonstrated an almost identical increased relative risk (1.28) for a total cardiovascular incidence endpoint (CHD and stroke) as was found in the trial.

These shifting goalposts, however, fail to explain why earlier claims from observational studies were so strongly supportive of a protective effect of HRT.

Were trial participants importantly different from women studied in observational studies?

Women in the WHI trial were older than the typical age at which women take HRT and were more obese than the women who have been included in the observational studies. These women may be more likely to have established atherosclerosis than younger and leaner women and therefore may be more prone to the prothrombotic effects of HRT. HRT may be protective for the general population of women but detrimental in sub-groups at higher risk of atherosclerosis. The results from the Framingham data, commented on in detail by Stampfer and Colditz, provide some support for a differential effect by age, with increased risk in older age groups. But Stampfer and Colditz also point out that other studies found the opposite age effect and yet other studies found no differential effect by age. Further, there was no evidence of interactions of treatment assignment with age, prior hormone use, or body mass index, for any cardiovascular outcomes in the WHI.

One of the commonest reasons for women seeking HRT at the time that most observational studies included in this review were conducted was that they had unpleasant menopausal symptoms; in the UK this continues to be one of the commonest reasons for use of HRT. A potentially important difference between trial participants and women included in observational studies is that the latter will have included many women with symptomatic menopauses who want treatment whereas the former are, by definition, women who are prepared to take a 50:50 chance of being allocated to HRT. It is plausible therefore that if menopausal symptoms are a good indicator of relative or absolute oestrogen deficiency, and that this is associated with increased CHD risk, HRT may be protective against CHD in such women but not in those who are asymptomatic. However, menopausal symptoms are affected by a wide range of social, psychological and cultural factors and are not necessarily a good reflection of hormonal status. Further, the role of oestrogen as an important determinant of CHD is unclear.

Were observational studies confounded?

One of the interesting things about the Stampfer and Colditz paper is their assertion that the protective effect of oestrogen '... is unlikely to be explained by confounding factors'. This is based on their comparison of behavioural and physiological risk factors for CHD among HRT users and non-users, with no mention of possible confounding by socioeconomic position. Despite the fact that use of HRT is strongly socially patterned, and that socioeconomic position is associated with CHD, in many observational studies adjustment for adult socioeconomic position has failed to have a marked impact on the HRT-CHD association. We have recently shown that indicators of childhood socioeconomic position are associated with HRT use, independently of adult socioeconomic position, behavioural and physiological risk factors. Further, we found a cumulative effect of socioeconomic position from across the life course (Figure), indicating that not only does life course socioeconomic position need to be accounted for in observational studies of HRT-CHD, but that a single measure of socioeconomic position is unlikely to be adequate. Finally, we found that whilst use of HRT was associated with reduced odds of CHD in simple age-adjusted analyses, and remained protective with additional adjustment for four measures of adult socioeconomic position and behavioural and physiological risk factors, when we adjusted for all measures of socioeconomic position across the life course there was a slightly higher risk of CHD associated with HRT use, consistent with RCT evidence. We concluded that the protective effect of HRT found in previous observational studies was likely to be influenced by residual confounding. Inadequate adjustment for socioeconomic position from across the life course would be one source of this residual confounding. Other factors such as the tendency for doctors to select those women who are already at low risk of CHD for HRT will also be important.

Why were the observational and RCT results consistent for other outcomes?

One issue which remains intriguing in this debate is that the conflict between observational and RCT evidence is specific for CHD. For other health outcomes such as breast cancer, colon cancer, hip fracture, and stroke, results from observational studies and trials were similar, suggesting that if confounding explains the apparent protective effect of HRT against CHD, the associations with these other outcomes were not similarly confounded. Poor socioeconomic circumstances are not strongly associated with breast and bowel cancer and therefore life course socioeconomic position, and risk factors associated with socioeconomic position, are probably not important confounders for these associations. Fewer studies have assessed the association of socioeconomic position with hip fracture and results are inconsistent, but one large community-based case-control study suggests that measures of adult adverse socioeconomic position are associated with increased risk of hip fracture. If childhood socioeconomic position is not independently (of adult socioeconomic position and behavioural risk factors for hip fracture such as smoking) associated with hip fracture then adjustment for adult social class and behavioural risk factors may provide adequate adjustment for the HRT-hip fracture association.

Although results have been inconsistent, on the whole observational studies have not found an association between HRT with stroke. Clearly, if studies are not finding a protective effect with respect to stroke then one cannot begin to argue about the role of residual confounding in explaining this (non-existent) association. However, the fact that observational studies tended to find no consistent effect of HRT on stroke whilst in the same studies a protective effect against CHD is found requires further consideration, given the similarities between these two conditions with respect to risk factor profiles. Interestingly, in their discussion of the paper by Thompson et al., which used a combined endpoint of myocardial infarction and stroke, Stampfer and Colditz hint at finding this combination problematic and indeed decrease the weight of this study in their pooled estimate because of the inclusion of strokes in the overall outcome. However, they make no comment about why they felt including strokes with CHD might underestimate the overall effect of HRT on their main outcome come of interest-CHD.

An important difficulty with respect to epidemiological studies of stroke is the ability to distinguish between stroke sub-types, and any differential associations between HRT and stroke sub-types may obscure the real picture. Indeed, in the WHI trial, exactly this differential pattern of increased risk of ischaemic stroke (i.e. a similar association to that found for CHD in this trial, as one would expect from their similar pathophysiology) and decreased risk of haemorrhagic stroke was found, suggesting that this is a plausible explanation. Attempts to assess the association of HRT with stroke sub-types in observational studies have yielded inconsistent results between studies for both sub-types. Heterogeneity between studies may in part reflect the differing extent of misclassification of stroke sub-type in these studies since routine death certificate classifications tend to be inaccurate and clinical diagnoses will only have reasonable accuracy where there has been widespread use of scans. In the WHI trial strokes were classified as ischaemic or haemorrhagic based on brain imaging.

Should we call it a day for observational epidemiology?

Well-conducted RCT have the clear advantage over observational studies in that they control for both known and unknown or unmeasured confounding factors, such as life course socioeconomic position and doctor selection practices. However, they are not always feasible, and because of the expense and ethical concerns of randomized trials, it is important that observational studies are used to effectively direct investigators to the interventions most appropriately assessed by trials. Abandoning observational studies for RCT would not therefore be a panacea. A more careful approach to the design and analysis of observational epidemiological studies should ensure that they remain a useful methodology for generating and testing hypotheses that ultimately may improve the health of the public. Future observational studies, in this and other areas, should aim to collect (even retrospectively) information on socioeconomic circumstances from across the life course in order to be able to adjust as fully as possible for potential confounding factors. Sensitivity analyses to assess the possibility of residual confounding should also become routine practice. In addition, specificity of association should be considered. As long ago as 1986 Diana Petitti and colleagues showed that HRT was apparently equally protective against accidental and violent deaths in an observational study as it was against cardiovascular disease deaths. They pointed out that given the lack of any biologically plausible link between HRT and these external causes of death both associations should be suspected of suffering from residual confounding. We discuss approaches to strengthening inferences from observational studies in more detail elsewhere.

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commentary: The hormone replacement-coronary heart disease conundrum: is this the death of observational epidemiology? | International Journal of Epidemiology | Oxford Academic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Under its definition for the word 'hindsight' the Oxford English Dictionary includes the following statement 'hindsight is always better than foresight' ( http://dictionary.oed.com/), and the slogan of a private survey and evaluation company, ingeniously called Hindsight, is 'remember hindsight is always 20/20!' ( http://www.hndsight.com/).

# data[].attributes.body
Definition
A red herring is something, especially a clue or an argument that misleads or distracts from an important issue. It intends to lead the readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.  Red herring is considered a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic, which may be used intentionally or unintentionally.

Connection
The character of Bishop Aringarosa, in Dan Brown’s novel Da Vinci Code, serves as an example of a red herring throughout the novel. The character is presented in such a way that the readers suspect him to be the mastermind of the whole conspiracy in the church.

Later, it is revealed that he is innocent. This example of a red herring in the novel distracts the readers from who the real bad guy is, and thus adds to the mystery of the story. Interestingly, the Italian surname of the bishop “Aringarosa” translates in English as “red herring.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following the symbolic code left by a murdered curator of the Louvre Museum, Robert Langdon, Harvard symbologist, must unravel a 2,000 year old mystery that cuts to the heart of the Christian faith, following the clues hidden in the works of Leonardo Da Vinci.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition
All natural is the idea that foods with the label "all natural" are healthier. This fallacy occurs when something is assumed to be good because it is "natural" or bad because it is "unnatural". This is not true, and the standards for being all natural are so low that these labels are virtually meaningless because a lot of things can be extracted naturally but it does not mean that they are better for our health than synthetic productions and not harmful to us, not to mention that many things found in nature are deadly. Things like poison oak, scorpion venom, lead, mercury and bubonic plague are all natural but they are not safe!

Connection
All Natural red flag can be seen on labels and advertisements for food, clothing, and alternative herbal remedies. Labels may use the phrase "all-natural", to imply that products are environmentally friendly and safe. The picture below shows a supermarket shelf with four different brands advertising themselves, in some form, as "natural".
Retrieved from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Appeal_to_Nature_Example.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
Definition
Proof by verbosity is an argument that is far too complicated and verbose for an opponent to reasonably address all the particulars, or the person making the argument is so well-reputed that one takes his claims as truth. It includes presenting an intentionally unclear, imprecise or cluttered argument which is not the modus operandi of those honestly wanting their argument to be vetted. This technique persuades by overwhelming those considering an argument with such volume that the argument sounds plausible.

Connection
The following video has some examples of arguments that are made too complex by the use of proof of verbosity. As a result, it leaves the listener with no choice other than to accept their proposed claims.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition
Agenticity refers to associating certain events or phenomena with agents such as angels, demons, ghosts, spirits, aliens etc. People believe that these invisible agents haunt them and control their lives.

Connection
The following link is to a web article by a famous skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer where he explains the concept of agenticity with some examples and also explains that how it is confused with other reasons for belief.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Skeptic's take on souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens and other invisible powers that be

By Michael Shermer

Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. Why?

The answer has two parts, starting with the concept of "patternicity," which I defined in my December 2008 column as the human tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Consider the face on Mars, the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, satanic messages in rock music. Of course, some patterns are real. Finding predictive patterns
in changing weather, fruiting trees, migrating prey animals and hungry predators was central to the survival of Paleolithic hominids.

The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are real.

But we do something other animals do not do. As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a theory of mind-the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others-we infer agency behind the patterns we observe in a practice I call "agenticity": the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents. We believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down (as opposed to bottom-up causal randomness). Together patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms.

Agenticity carries us far beyond the spirit world. The Intelligent Designer is said to be an invisible agent who created life from the top down. Aliens are often portrayed as powerful beings coming down from on high to warn us of our impending self-destruction. Conspiracy theories predictably include hidden agents at work behind the scenes, puppet masters pulling political and economic strings as we dance to the tune of the Bilderbergers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers or the Illuminati. Even the belief that government can impose top-down measures to rescue the economy is a form of agenticity, with President Barack Obama being touted as "the one" with almost messianic powers who will save us.

There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them, well documented in the new book SuperSense (HarperOne, 2009) by University of Bristol psychologist Bruce Hood. Examples: children believe that the sun can think and follows them around; because of such beliefs, they often add smiley faces on sketched suns. Adults typically refuse to wear a mass murderer's sweater, believing that "evil" is a supernatural force that imparts its negative agency to the wearer (and, alternatively, that donning Mr. Rogers's cardigan will make you a better person). A third of transplant patients believe that the donor's personality is transplanted with the organ. Genital-shaped foods (bananas, oysters) are often believed to enhance sexual potency. Subjects watching geometric shapes with eye spots interacting on a computer screen conclude that they represent agents with moral intentions.

"Many highly educated and intelligent individuals experience a powerful sense that there are patterns, forces, energies and entities operating in the world," Hood explains. "More important, such experiences are not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence, which is why they are supernatural and unscientific. The inclination or sense that they may be real is our supersense."

We are natural-born supernaturalists.
Note: This article was originally published with the title, "Agenticity".
This article was originally published with the title "Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World" in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 300 No. 6 ()

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Skeptic's take on souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens and other invisible powers that be

# data[].attributes.body
Definition
"We don't know what we don't know." Most of the paranormal beliefs are taken into consideration because there are no definitive descriptions for that particular cause. The reasoning and explanations are beyond the scope of the rationality of the human brain. We don't know the cause of a certain phenomenon so we try to explain it ourselves because we know that there is a reason to everything.

Connection
The Bermuda triangle covers the area just off the coast of Florida to Puerto Rico and the island of Bermuda. There had been a lot of incidences that took place in that area. Planes and ships have disappeared there in a number of high profile cases over the years. Scientists have so far been baffled by the disappearances, which have claimed at least 1000 lives over the past 100 years, according to reports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Missing Ships and Planes? Does the Bermuda Triangle really have strange powers ?

The Bermuda Triangle is a region in the western part of the North Atlantic Ocean in which ships, planes, and people are alleged to have mysteriously vanished

For decades, the Atlantic Ocean's fabled Bermuda Triangle has captured the human imagination with unexplained disappearances of ships, planes, and people.

Some speculate that unknown and mysterious forces account for the unexplained disappearances, such as extraterrestrials capturing humans for study; the influence of the lost continent of Atlantis; vortices that suck objects into other dimensions; and other whimsical ideas. Some explanations are more grounded in science, if not in evidence. These include oceanic flatulence (methane gas erupting from ocean sediments) and disruptions in geomagnetic lines of flux.

Environmental considerations could explain many, if not most, of the disappearances. The majority of Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes pass through the Bermuda Triangle, and in the days prior to improved weather forecasting, these dangerous storms claimed many ships. Also, the Gulf Stream can cause rapid, sometimes violent, changes in weather. Additionally, the large number of islands in the Caribbean Sea creates many areas of shallow water that can be treacherous to ship navigation. And there is some evidence to suggest that the Bermuda Triangle is a place where a "magnetic" compass sometimes points towards "true" north, as opposed to "magnetic" north.

The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard contend that there are no supernatural explanations for disasters at sea. Their experience suggests that the combined forces of nature and human fallibility outdo even the most incredulous science fiction. They add that no official maps exist that delineate the boundaries of the Bermuda Triangle. The U. S. Board of Geographic Names does not recognize the Bermuda Triangle as an official name and does not maintain an official file on the area.

The ocean has always been a mysterious place to humans, and when foul weather or poor navigation is involved, it can be a very deadly place. This is true all over the world. There is no evidence that mysterious disappearances occur with any greater frequency in the Bermuda Triangle than in any other large, well-traveled area of the ocean

Lost Planes & Ships in Bermuda Triangle

Here are some of the most amazing stories of planes and ships that disappeared while crossing the triangle area. As you visit the links, you will also see my findings behind such great mysteries of all times.

Flight 19: The Avenger planes of Flight-19 took off from the U.S Naval Base of Florida for a routine training session, but never returned.

PBM Martin Mariner: When the hopes for Flight-19 was quickly fading, two Martin Mariner planes were sent by US Navy to search them out. One came back, but strangely the other didn't. Read the full story.

Tudor Star Tiger: Star Tiger, a Tudor Mark-IV aircraft disappeared in Bermuda Triangle shortly before it was about to land at the Bermuda airport.

Fight DC-3: The flight DC-3 NC16002 disappeared when it was only 50 miles south of Florida and about to land in Miami.

Flight 441: The flight 441, a Super Constellation Naval Airliner disappeared in October 1954.

C-54 Skymaster: Apparently it seemed to be a sudden thunderstorm that had disintegrated the plane. But there was much more to the story.

Mary Celeste - The Ghost Ship: Known as one of the ghost ships of Bermuda Triangle, Mary Celeste had many misadventures even before her mystery voyage in 1872. Find out the full story.

Marine Sulphur Queen: This 524-foot carrier of molten sulphur started sail on Feb 2, 1963 from Beaumont, Texas with 39 crew. It was reported lost in Florida Straits on February 4.

Ellen Austin: The Ellen Austin, an American schooner, met with another ship in Bermuda Triangle. The other ship that was moving in full speed, strangely had nobody on board.

USS Cyclops: Disappearance of the carrier ship U.S.S. Cyclops in Bermuda Triangle has been one of the greatest mysteries of the sea.

USS Scorpion: USS Scorpion (SSN-589) was a Nuclear powered submarine of United States Navy that disappeared in Bermuda Triangle area in May 1968.

Those were only few cases. Check out Bermuda Triangle Incidents for a list of all the major indents in the triangle area along with fascinating stories for many

People have joined the discussion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Missing Ships and Planes? Does the Bermuda Triangle really have strange powers ? The Bermuda Triangle is a region in the western part of the North Atlantic Ocean in which ships, planes, and people are alleged to have mysteriously vanished For decades, the Atlantic Ocean's fabled Bermuda Triangle has captured the human imagination with unexplained disappearances of ships, planes, and people.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #8 Reason for Belief: Patternicity 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #8 Reason for Belief: Patternicity 

# data[].attributes.body
Definition
Patternicity is defined as trying to find connections and meaningfulness of something unusual or completely unrelated.
A renowned skeptic Micheal  Shermer came up with the word "patternicity" defining it as "the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise."

Connection
The following picture is a good example of patternicity. It is a black and white sketch of a duck but when you see the picture sideways, it looks like its a rabbit.  The duck's beak looks like the rabbit's ears if looking at the picture vertically.

Retrieved from: https://psychologyacademia.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/apophenia-patternicity-conditioned-seeing-and-the-meaningless-the-science-of-being-fooled/

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #10 Critical Thinking Process (Word File

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #10 Critical Thinking Process (Word File

# data[].attributes.body
Question responses.