# data[].attributes.headline
Post #10 Critical Thinking Process Response

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #10 Critical Thinking Process Response

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to evaluate the video

Personal Angel Encounter: Boy's Life Is Saved - A True Story as seen is post #9

The Extraordinary Claim:
The boy's life was saved by an angel
The Information:
The young man was biking down the street when suddenly he was flung off his bike and out of the way of a speeding car flying past
Evidence Evaluation:
There was no one around to vouch for the occurrence, there is also no evidence supporting the existence of angels or anything of that nature. The boy could simply relying on his faith to provide himself with an answer that best suits his situation.
Assumptions, Emotions, Biases:
It is clear that the boy is one of strong faith and just avoided a very traumatic incident, it is possible he was simply looking for an explanation that made most sense to him and due to his faith a guardian angel was it.
Synthesis Evidence, Identify Alternatives:
1. The boy is correct and as he states and believes an angel was in fact looking out for him and saved him from being struck
2. Some other factor such as the wind or a rock on the ground caused him to be flung from the bike and the car not striking him was simply a coincidence.
Best Alternative:
I feel the second alternative is the most likely and that it was simply a lucky coincidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Made by Brayden LaFrance, working individually

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
The use of celebrity endorsements or mention of awards to persuade the general public of something.
Connection:
This article shows how companies using Appeal to Authority often leads to not only consumers being mislead but also people being offended and misconstrued. Often big corporations believe that because they are using prominent people, it is alright to make representations that are untrue, malicious or just offensive but this is never true.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 celebrity endorsements that enraged consumers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sometimes having celebrities pitch your products can backfire. Badly. Here are six infamous cases in which celeb endorsements went terribly wrong.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
The occurrence of one event, that with no real connection, results in the occurrence of another event leading someone to believe the original event was the cause.
Connection:
This article discusses some examples of the Confusion of Causation and Correlation Red Flag, it also touches on something extremely interesting, which is that for years smoking companies tried to Causation and Correlation to disprove smoking causing lung cancer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When I first started blogging about correlation and causation (literally my third and fourth post ever), I asserted that there were three possibilities whenever two variables were correlated. Now that I'm older and wiser, I've expanded my list to six:

1. Thing A caused Thing B (causality)

2. Thing B caused Thing A (reversed causality)

3. Thing A causes Thing B which then makes Thing A worse (bidirectional causality)

4. Thing A causes Thing X causes Thing Y which ends up causing Thing B (indirect causality)

5. Some other Thing C is causing both A and B (common cause)

6. It's due to chance (spurious or coincidental)

The obvious conclusion is that years spent blogging about statistics directly correlates to the number of possible ways of confusing correlation and causation you recognize.

Anyway, I've talked about this a lot over the years, and this lesson is pretty fundamental in any statistics class...though options #3 and #4 up there aren't often covered at all. It's easily forgotten, so I wanted to use this post to pull together an interesting example of each type.

1. Smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer (Thing A causes Thing B): This is an example I use in my Intro to Internet Science talk I give to high school students. Despite my continued pleading to be skeptical of various claims, I like to point out that sometimes disbelieving a true claim also has consequences. For years tobacco companies tried to cast doubt on the link between smoking and lung cancer, often using "correlation is not causation!" type propaganda.

2. Weight gain in pregnancy and pre-eclampsia (Thing B causes Thing A): This is an interesting case of reversed causation that I blogged about a few years ago. Back in the 1930s or so, doctors had noticed that women who got pre-eclampsia (a potentially life threatening condition) also had rapid weight gain. They assumed the weight gain was causing the pre-eclampsia, and thus told women to severely restrict their weight gain. Unfortunately it was actually the pre-eclampsia causing the weight gain, and it is pretty likely the weight restrictions did more harm than good.

3. Dating and desperation (Thing A causes Thing B which makes Thing A worse): We've all had that friend. The one who strikes out with everyone they try to date, and then promptly doubles down on their WORST behaviors. This is the guy who stops showering before he takes girls out because "what's the point". Or the girl who gets dumped after bringing up marriage on the third date, so she brings it up on the first date instead. This is known as "bidirectional causality" and is less formally known as "a vicious cycle". In nature this can cause some really amusing graph behavior, as in the case of predators and prey. An increase in prey can cause an increase in predators, but an increase in predators will cause a decrease in prey. Thus, predator and prey populations can be both positively AND negatively correlated, depending on where you are in the cycle.

4. Vending machines in Schools and obesity (Thing A causes Thing X causes Thing Y which then causes Thing B): One obvious cause of obesity is eating extra junk food. One obvious source of extra junk food is vending machines. One obvious place to find vending machines is in many schools. So remove vending machines from schools and reduce obesity, right? No, sadly, not that easy. In a longitudinal study that surprised even the authors, it was found that kids who moved from schools without vending machines to those with vending machines don't gain weight. What's interesting is that you can find a correlation between kids who were overweight and eating food from vending machines, but it turns out the causal relationship is convoluted enough that removing the vending machines doesn't actually fix the original end point.

5. Vitamins and better health (Some other Thing C is causing Thing A and Thing B):This one is similar to #4, but I consider it more applicable when it turns out Thing A and Thing B weren't even really connected at all. Eating a bag of chips out of a vending machine every day CAN cause you to gain weight, even if removing the vending machine doesn't help you lose it again. With many vitamin supplements on the other hand, initial correlations are often completely misleading. Many people who get high levels of certain vitamins (Thing A) are actually just those who pay attention to their health (Thing C), and those people tend to have better health outcomes (Thing B). Not all vitamins should be tarred with the same brush though, this awesome visualization shows where the evidence stands for 100 different supplements.

6. Spurious Correlations (spurious or due to chance): There's a whole website of these, but my favorite is this one:

Causal inference, not for the faint of heart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Examples of Correlation/Causation Confusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I first started blogging about correlation and causation (literally my third and fourth post ever), I asserted that there were three possibilities whenever two variables were correlated. Now that I'm older and wiser, I've expanded my list to six: Thing A caused Thing B (causality) Thing B caused Thing A (reversed causality) Thing A causes...

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Use of political or religious campaign to try to prove somethings validity
Connection:
Below is a picture of prisoners in a World War Two Concentration Camp. The premise of this war was the cause of Ideology as Adolf Hitler pushed many of his political and religious ideas on his people and used these ideologies to show his actions were "acceptable"

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
the notion that a product is safe and healthy because it is labelled all natural
Connection:
This article talks about cleaning products that are labelled "All Natural" but actually contain toxic elements that are dangerous to our health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you have a curious toddler, eager young children who can't pass up a good spray bottle, or a helpful teenager (congratulations!), you're probably buying natural cleaning products. The toxic chemicals in conventional cleaners are linked with all kinds of health issues like reproductive toxicity, cancer, asthma, allergies, burns & poisonings. The bad news is that many natural cleaners are not nearly as safe as most parents think! Here's what you need to know to separate the truths from the myths in your pursuit of safe, chemical free cleaners.

Myth #1: "Natural" cleaners are toxic chemical free cleaners.

It's hard to believe, but there are no federal regulations that dictate standards for products labeled as "natural". So while you may think "natural" means no dangerous chemicals, that's actually not at all the case. While many natural cleaners may be somewhat safer than conventional cleaners, the reality is that many products labeled as "natural" are actually not toxic chemical free cleaners at all. Products from brands like Seventh Generation, Method, Mrs. Meyers, Honest Company & Green Works all contain toxic chemicals like allergens, skin and respiratory irritants.

Myth #2: Natural cleaning products are safe.

In fact, many cleaners labeled as "natural" contain dangerous fragrances, dyes, preservatives, allergens & irritants. Check out these surprising safety ratings from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) that show "natural" brands earning the same safety ratings as conventional cleaners:

So as much as you might want your children to help you clean, you can't be sure your "natural" cleaning product is actually safe enough to use around them.

Myth #3: The ingredient list actually tells you what's in the product.

Unlike the manufacturers of food, beverages, cosmetics & personal care products, manufacturers of cleaning products are not required to disclose all of their products' ingredients on their packaging labels. Shocking, right? So how do you hunt down the toxic chemical free cleaners? First, look for specificity. Many manufacturers use vague terms that can hide all sorts of toxic ingredients. For example "fragrance" can actually mean a cocktail of undisclosed ingredients, when even natural fragrances can cause allergic reactions. Other vague descriptions to watch for are "surfactants", "cleaning agents" or "preservatives", where the lack of specificity means you can't easily research the ingredients yourself. An example is methylisothiazolinone, which is often just labelled as "preservative". It's as scary as it is unpronounceable, given its association with lung toxicity, allergies, and possible neurotoxicity.

Myth #4: Botanical ingredients are safe.

Don't be fooled by safe-sounding botanical-based ingredients like thymol, which is actually a known allergen. When you see a natural or botanical ingredient, do your own research because many aren't as safe as you think. For example, citrus and pine oil cleaners emit chemicals called terpenes that can form formaldehyde when they react with ozone in the air. Or some essential oils contain substances like eugenol and limonene which can trigger allergic reactions.

Myth #5: The government tests cleaning products for safety.

Ready for a jaw-dropper? Out of some 62,000 chemicals approved for use in the US, only about 300 have actually been tested for safety. The last time the law governing the safety of chemical products was changed, the cost of gas was $.59 a gallon and the average cost of a new house was $43,400. That would be 1976. Scary! That means the onus is really on you to do your own research. The good news is that an excellent resource for researching cleaning product health and environmental safety is the Environmental Working Group, which has a searchable database of products.

Remove the Guesswork

Or you can stop worrying about deciphering ingredient labels and instead try Force of Nature, which uses electricity to convert salt, water & vinegar into a cleaner and EPA registered disinfectant as effective as bleach - but with no harmful chemicals. No dyes, fragrances, preservatives, allergens or irritants, no mysterious ingredient list. And it powers through grease, grime, soap scum & odors as effectively as top conventional brands but without the nasty chemicals you don't want around your children & pets. It's even gentle on skin, with no toxic residues to harm the little hands in your home, no rinsing needed. Force of Nature is actually the only EPA registered disinfectant that you can make on your kitchen countertop. It kills 99.9% of viruses and bacteria and meets EPA standards as a Hospital-Grade Disinfectant. Force of Nature is also on EPA's list N, the disinfectants approved for use against SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19, and EPA expects all products on List N to kill all strains and variants of SARS-CoV-2. You can learn more about Force of Nature's technology called electrolyzed water or how Force of Nature kills viruses & bacteria. And if you want to dig in even more, we've also got the scoop on how Force of Nature is safe to use on virtually any surface in your home, and about how Force of Nature actually works.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Ways Natural Cleaning Products Aren't As Safe As You Think - Force of Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Did you know even natural cleaners contain toxic chemicals? We de-bunk the myths that make you think your natural products are toxic chemical free cleaners.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Not known something that is unknown and trying to fabricate a reason why for the unknown.
Connection:
The below video displays 10 Scientific wonders that ha never truly been solved or explained. In the video some of the brightest minds try to explain the unexplained. This is a great example of the Reason for Belief as since it is unexplained we can try to form our own beliefs around it and use that to show what we believe is true.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Unanswered Science Questions - Explained by the greatest minds on YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
Fully believing in an aspect of something based on a belief and forgetting or not believing in the flip side of something based on said belief
Connection:
The below picture is a diagram of a phenomenon called the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a scientific possibility as to how the world was created, despite many findings disproving the Big Bang, many believers of the phenomenon refuse the idea that there is any other explanation to how the universe may have been created, such as a high power (God).

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #7 Reason for Belief: Patternicity 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #7 Reason for Belief: Patternicity 

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
The tendency to find patterns in meaningless noise.
Connection:
The article attached is written by Dr. Shermer and it goes into depth as to, scientifically speaking, why people often pick patterns out of random things with no real pattern at all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
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".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why the brain believes something is real when it is not

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
The tendency to assign meaning, intention and agency, often to invisible beings (e.g. UFO's or Angles)
Connection:
This video is about a young man who was biking down the street when suddenly was flung off his bike just before a speeding car flew past. He believes that an angel was looking out for him and had the angel not intervened he would have been struck and killed by the car.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Personal Angel Encounter: Boy's Life Is Saved - A True Story