Do you believe the sun will come up in the morning?

[bluedawg12]

OK- this is not a call out for any previous thread,etc. It is for skeptics, sort of something I have been thinking about, namely Karl Popper's ideas. I would enjoy some feed back from skeptics here. :hi:


Do you believe the sun will come up in the morning?

Do you know if the sun will come up in the morning?

I predict it will come up in the morning. I don’t actually “know” for sure.

I understand it to be true, based on observation that the sun has come up every single day of my life.

If I were in ancient Greece, I might believe that Apollo will ride his fiery chariot across the skies.That’s not the kind of belief system I mean. That is one belief system, it’s just not mine.

My system is based on empirical observation. I understand that the sun rises in the east daily and sets in the west every evening. It’s pretty solid, but still a prediction based on observation, although those are facts.

If I had more data about the sun, it’s energy stores, it’s energy consumption, it’s means of energy utilization I might “know” more about why the sun will, or will not, come up in the morning. I don’t have such data, so I understand a fact to be true based on my observation of the world I live in.

If I knew more data about the sun, for example, it’s life expectancy, then, with that calculation I could say I know to a reasonable degree of certainty that it will come up tomorrow. My prediction may be more accurate and may even be predictive further out in time. Like the future.

Then, I could answer that I no longer believe the "Sun-Apollo" will come up, tomorrow.
I know it will come up! All things being equal, like Apollo not running his chariot directly into the eyeball of the sun and killing it.

That’s how it seems to work for humans. We observe things in the physical world and when there is no explanation at all and when we have no system for analyzing reality, we tend to think of physical phenomenon in terms of spiritual principles.

When, we have some organized way of thinking about reality, some experience with logic then we are able to draw conclusions from the physical world. We can understand that empirical data and know that recurring events tend to reoccur.

When I want to know more about the sun and believe less, I may keep records, collect data, record cycles. Now, sooner or later the two systems diverge. Apollo goes his merry way, with or without me.

Apollo does not need me to measure anything about the Sun’s physical characteristics in order to be meaningful as a spiritual entity and conversely, knowing that the sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago when the rapid collapse of a hydrogen molecular cloud led to the formation of a third generation T Tauri Population I star does not lessen any attribute of Apollo. (1) OK, he is not THE sun, rather he rides up every morning to draw the curtains.

This it seems, is why the systems diverge sooner or later and the spiritual realm remains a matter of faith and belief, while science marches on trying to learn more and more about the sun and nothing at all about Apollo.

So when do we know things in science and when do we not?

If it can’t be disproved, it is not scientific.

It’s not good enough to say that the sun is there, so we know it can be analyzed scientifically. That could still be a matter of the spiritual realm. Science has the potential to study everything except the unknowable. There is one more criteria for something to be science. The theory has to be falsifiable.

There has to be a possibility at the very essence of the question that possibly the sun may not be there.

If we posit that Apollo is divine and always was there and always will be by virtue of his pre-defined divinity, that is not science. It is belief.

In scientific analysis, not only is it possible that a universe without our sun could exist, but the possibility is allowed that it was not always there and may not always remain there. Hence, we have data about the age of the sun and it’s life expectancy.

This came from thinking a little about Karl Popper.

“Popper coined the term critical rationalism to describe his philosophy. The term indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and of the observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false.

Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.” (2)

That’s the good news. For something to be scientific there has got to be a possibility that the theory can be disproved. If it cannot be disproved, then more good news, it’s not science and it may be a matter for some other system, such as faith, and the two should not be in conflict...unless we twist the rules and make it so. It’s good news because it seems somewhat organized and defined.

“In Popper's view, the advance of scientific knowledge is an evolutionary process characterized by his formula:


PS 1 –> TT1–>EE1–> PS2

In response to a given problem situation (PS1),
a number of competing conjectures, or tentative theories (TT),
are systematically subjected to the most rigorous attempts at falsification possible.

This process, error elimination (EE), performs a similar function for science that natural selection performs for biological evolution.

Theories that better survive the process of refutation are not more true, but rather, more "fit"—in other words, more applicable to the problem situation at hand (PS1).

Consequently, just as a species' "biological fit" does not predict continued survival, neither does rigorous testing protect a scientific theory from refutation in the future. Yet, as it appears that the engine of biological evolution has produced, over time, adaptive traits equipped to deal with more and more complex problems of survival, likewise, the evolution of theories through the scientific method may, in Popper's view, reflect

a certain type of progress: toward more and more interesting problems (PS2).

For Popper, it is in the interplay between the tentative theories (conjectures) and error elimination (refutation) that scientific knowledge advances toward greater and greater problems; in a process very much akin to the interplay between genetic variation and natural selection.”(2)

Or as Popper said: “that while there is no way to prove that the sun will rise, we can formulate a theory that every day the sun will rise—if it does not rise on some particular day, our theory will be disproved, but at present it is confirmed. Since it is a very well-tested theory, we have every right to believe that it accurately represents reality, so far as we know.” (2)

That’s my best shot at Karl Popper for the moment. Any thoughts or ideas on how else to explain the scientific method? Or to add or subtract from it? Unless it has been discussed to smithereens already? :evilgrin:



(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

[Heddi]

1. I'm high on Pecan Pie and Sweet tea

so I'm all tapped out for the moment. Brain cells bathed in sticky sweet sugar concoction everything looks fuzzy when i turn my eyes too fast my fingers don't work as fast as my brain silly taste on my tongue never gonna sleep ever

[bluedawg12]

2. Mine is from Kosher for Passover Macaroons

I broke into mrsbd's stash and am nomshing. Nom nom.Won't she be surprised next week? :evilgrin:

Besides I gave my all for this freaking thread cuz I really can't type for sh*t and all I got was this lousy macaroon and a really cute LOL cat!




Muhhaaawwww,haw!

[Heddi]

3. Well, for what it's worth I think your thread brought up valid points

I don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow because there are many reasons why the sun won't rise tomorrow. However, based on scientific understanding of the sun, the age of the sun, and the mechanisms of the earth's rotation around the sun, I can say with a high degree of certainty that the sun WILL rise tomorrow.

Were I a betting gal, I'd even bet that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I base my bet, again, on the scientific inquiry and knowledge that has shown why the sun rises in the east every day, why it has risen in the east for X millenea, and why we can practically be assured it will rise in the east tomorrow and for many tomorrows to come.

Now, if I were one one that had a scientific-based mindset, I,like you, may think that at any time Apollo could just turn that chariot around and do something else, preventing the sun from rising in the east. Or maybe I think that if I pray hard enough, or perhaps if enough people prayed hard enough with me, that the sun would rise in the west, or maybe rise at midnight instead of dawn.

But I try to base my knowledge of the working world on science, and the results gained by scientific evidence and experiement. I will be more than happy to change my opinion on the sun rising in the east tomorrow should some information come to light that would show that perhaps the sun WILL NOT rise in the east tomorrow.

Then again, I'm a proofy kind of gal

[bluedawg12]

4. I think you nailed what old Karl was saying.

If there is metaphysical certainty about something, i.e. it can't be proven, then, it is not in the realm of science.

You said it right here: "I will be more than happy to change my opinion on the sun rising in the east tomorrow should some information come to light that would show that perhaps the sun WILL NOT rise in the east tomorrow."

That's pretty much the whole point. Every theory is proven, and proven and proven until some data comes along to change it, to falsify it. That's when we know it's working properly, because research has to be verifiable and able to be duplicated. That is point of peer review.

This is also why so many people get confused and angry about science, because they expect certainty.

"Gee, last year they said wine was good for me, this year it's bad. WTF? Science is bogus."

Not really, probably the new data built on previous data and future data will possible reveal something more advanced and refined.

It is what we do in real life. We keep searching for solutions and just when we think we have the best way to do something a new product comes out, or we think of a better way.

I of course don't mean that there is no need to support claims with positive data in the first place. LOL. But, in the far advanced reaches of theoretical science, like physics, they do rely on the whole principle of having to stand up to disproving something and all it takes is one little blip and you see Steven Hawking 20 years worth of research and theory go down the drain and he is OK with it, because it builds on to the next step and because that is part of the process.

There is no question that the process works, the advances in technology in the last century are astounding.

[Heddi]

7. "This year wine is good for me, next year it will be bad for me"

is one of the frustrations I have not only with the Health Lounge, "medical" and "Scientific" reporting, but with the general education level in this country.

So a report is out that WINE IS GOOD FOR YOU omg I'm totally going to DRINK THE FUCK OUT OF THAT WINE AND LIVE TO BE A BILLION YEARS OLD WOOOOO

but better reporting MAY lead to more detailed reading (highly unlikely) that it's not the wine ITSELF that's good for you, it's ONE COMPONENT in the wine that MAY be good for you but we're not sure because we only tested 14 people who drank wine everyday and they all lived to be o24u93874 years old.

Then next month a report WINE MAY SHORTEN LIFE SPAN BY 20 YEARS omg FUCK THAT DEADLY WINE IT'S A CONSPIRACY ptewptew I SPIT THE WINE OUT OH GOD I"M GOING TO DIE TOMORROW I HATE WINE

but better reporting MAY lead to more detailed reading (highly unlikely) that it's STILL Not the wine itself that is bad for you, it's ONE COMPONENT of the wine that MAY decrease life span, but we're not really sure because we only tested this on Rats, who have a life span of 14 months, and we gave them SUPER DUPER doses, like the dose you'd get only if you drank NOTHING but wine 24 hours a day for your ENTIRE LIFE and the rats died at 11 months so we extrapolate that to be a 20-year human lifespan difference.

It's scientific ignorance.

Remember a few years ago when APPLE CIDER VINEGAR was the CURE ALL OF THE CENTURY and you could buy this horrid apple cider vinegar drink shit that you drank 3 x's a day and it cured warts and old age and gray hairs and foot wrinkles, made your penis the size of a salami and gave your vagina 4 extra sets of lips.

Only it didn't.

It was a marketing scheme that was concocted from some half-assed study of, like, 8 mice studied over a 2 hour period of time that found when the mice drank a component of apple cider vinegar they grew extra labia or something. I don't know. but it was half-assed science based on an even halfer-assed report of even more half-halfer assed studies. But it was EVERYWHERE holy smokes. The apple cider vinegar business was more than happy to peddle this foul crap to everyone who'd buy it. And idiots thought "oh gee well MALT VINEGAR is STRONGER SMELLIN' SO THAT MEANS IT'S GOODER WORKIN'" and they'd drink MALT VINEGAR I swear and their breath smelled like a mix between a fish and chips store and dirty feet. It was awful. I was so glad when Oprah or whoever debunked that entirely too smelly fad.

[bluedawg12]

12. Once again you have cut to the chase.

And have me spewing al over the keyboard.

Thank you.

"...concocted from some half-assed study of, like, 8 mice studied over a 2 hour period of time that found when the mice drank a component of apple cider vinegar they grew extra labia or something. -Heddi"


I do recall the research well and the vocal protest from mice who found it very difficult to sit for prolonged periods of time. Which then led to the the fa- mouse study: Mice who drink apple cider grow an extra labia, sit with poor posture and would develop low back pain if they were bipeds.


The take home message: Even in the 21 st Century, many people are superstitious and would rather think Apollo drives a chariot across the sky sooner than consider the events around nuclear fusion.
Or should I say nuke-u-lar? I mean for eight fracking years we had a maroon at the helm who prided himself on mispronouncing a second grade word.


It's almost as if the more we learn, the more skeptical the average person becomes, because not understanding the scientific principle of proof and falsification of proof, they expect concrete examples of absolute truth in each USA today second page below the fold story about science.

[bluedawg12]

5. One other thought: Intelligent Design.

There can be no falsification as the basis eventually distills down to an argument from authority, a
non-scientific book.

[Heddi]

6. and I think intelligent design is a weasel's way out of the Creationist theroy

and it boils down to one of my inherent problems with religion: You ask "why" and are told:

because god wanted it that way
because god didn't want it that way

Pray and your "prayer is answered" = god is looking out for you
Pray and your prayer is "not" answered = god has/had other plans

Suffer imaginable tragedy, grief, loss = god will not give you more than you can handle. Everything happens for a reason

Same with intelligent design. The birds beak is not that way because that shaped beak makes it easier to obtain nectar from fruit that are native to this place. The birds beak is that way because GOD wanted it to be that way.

To me, I think nature is MUCH more beautiful knowing that it can change and adapt to its surroundings. THAT is a wonderful thing. A bird having this beak always having this beak will always have this beak because GOD likes that beak is kind of lame, yanno.

[bluedawg12]

10. ID +A theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable

A theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.” - Karl Popper

This is what I think I learned from Popper: If it can’t be disproved, it is not scientific.

In the instances you cited below, not only can’t you prove them, but by definition they cannot be falsified.

The statements below are just dandy as statements of faith, but they are not scientific theory.

In intelligent design the final argument reduces down to the unprovable and unfalsifiable. Namely, that life is so complex that ( here is where they throw in the towel on science) that no matter how long it takes, random intermingling of genes and mutations cannot account for something as complex as an eye, no matter how long it takes, it just can’t happen without an unseen helping hand.

Never mind that there are pigmented cells, derived from neural ectoderm that are photosensitive and it doesn’t take much imagination to imagine that sheet of cells curving in on itself and eventual forming a light sensitive primitive organ, which then can then eventually develop rods and cones and so on...

.........


because god wanted it that way =>>can it be proved and disproved?
because god didn't want it that way =>>can it be proved and disproved?

Pray and your "prayer is answered" = god is looking out for you =>>can it be proved and disproved?

Pray and your prayer is "not" answered = god has/had other plans =>>can it be proved and disproved?

Suffer imaginable tragedy, grief, loss = god will not give you more than you can handle. Everything happens for a reason =>>can it be proved and disproved?

Same with intelligent design. The birds beak is not that way because that shaped beak makes it easier to obtain nectar from fruit that are native to this place. The birds beak is that way because GOD wanted it to be that way.=>>can it be proved and disproved?
........

[mr blur]

8. I predict that it will. I even trust that it will,

based on past observation and experience.

[bluedawg12]

9. OMG! Trust + science

heresy! :rofl:

Hey, here is how complicated this can get. Some might enjoy this little article. I guess because of the cold war and cold war politics Popper was controversial. So here is a guy defending old Karl. It's an interesting look at epistemology, or the science of knowledge and how we aquire knowledge.
Anway: http://www.la-articles.org.uk/popper.htm

Here is why science is skeptical of confirmation!

"Observations of black crows, it is stated, "can be taken in two ways; confirmations of 'all crows are black,’ or disconfirmations of 'some crows are not black.’"How can a single observation of a black crow (even if accurate) support a universal theory? How can it undermine the existential statement that there is a non-black crow somewhere? Gardner makes his assertions without attempting to reply to these obvious falsificationist criticisms. It is true that "Popper recognized — but dismissed as unimportant — that every falsification of a conjecture is simultaneously a confirmation of an opposite conjecture.”'All crows are black’ has the form of a universal theory in science. The assumption 'This is a white crow’ falsifies it and is significant. The fact that 'This is a white crow’ also logically confirms the theory 'Not all crows are black’ (assuming this is the "opposite conjecture”) is without scientific significance. 'Not all crows are black’ does not have the form of a universal theory in science. Gardner continues, "and every conforming instance of a conjecture is a falsification of an opposite conjecture.” To make sense of this I can only assume that the "opposite conjecture” to 'All crows are black’ is now 'No crows are black’ (or some equivalent expression). But that is a universal conjecture that "This is a black crow” significantly falsifies."


And:

>> "ts language is almost always one of induction.” What is the relevance of Gardner’s joke that "If Popper bet on a certain horse to win a race, and the horse won, you would not expect him to shout, 'Great! My horse failed to lose!’” Gardner thinks that Popper ought to shout this if he were consistent about denying confirmations. But Popper’s point is, again, that we can observe (albeit in a theory-laden way) such singular events as a horse winning but we cannot observe universals, such as "My horse always wins” (even if it has done so in all observed cases).<<

And this little gem:

>> "...confirming instances underlie our beliefs that the Sun will rise tomorrow, that dropped objects will fall, that water will freeze and boil, and a million other events. It is hard to think of another philosophical battle so decisively lost.” But since these theories were first formulated we have discovered that the sun does not always 'rise’ each day in the North and South poles (and does not really 'rise’, at all), that a 'dropped’ hot air balloon will not fall, that water will not freeze or boil at normal temperatures given unusual pressures, and a million other refutations of things we thought we once knew. ...Today’s counterintuitive theory can become tomorrow’s common sense. Perhaps the modern equivalent of Descartes’s deceiving demon is that we live in a Matrix-like virtual reality (though this has obvious parallels with Berkeley’s view of the world as well).<<

[bluedawg12]

11. "An eye is too complex to ever evolve." Science?

No. It is a firm conclusion and doesn't present a theory. It is a conclusion.

In fact the "theory" is:

"An eye is too complex to ever evolve. Therefore, there must be an intelligent designer at work."

Theory: An eye is complex and yet can evolve.

Prove it? Yes.
Possible to disprove it? Yes.

Is there any proof that an eye can evolve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

>>Evolution of the eye
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Major stages in the evolution of the camera eye.The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of taxa. Certain components of the eye, such as the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry – that is, they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times<1> – using many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction. <2><3>

Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years, in the rapid burst of evolution known as the Cambrian explosion. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian Burgess shale.

Eyes show a wide range of adaptations to meet the requirements of the organisms which bear them. Eyes may vary in their acuity, the range of wavelengths they can detect, their sensitivity in low light levels, their ability to detect motion or resolve objects, and whether they can discriminate colours.<<




The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they can not distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena. The euglena's eyespot, called a stigma, is located at its anterior end. It is a small splotch of red pigment which shades a collection of light sensitive crystals. Together with the leading flagellum, the eyespot allows the organism to move in response to light, often toward the light to assist in photosynthesis,<13> and to predict day and night, the primary function of circadian rhythms. Visual pigments are located in the brains of more complex organisms, and are thought to have a role in synchronising spawning with lunar cycles. By detecting the subtle changes in night-time illumination, organisms could synchronise the release of sperm and eggs to maximise the probability of fertilisation.""<<
............

[bluedawg12]

13. Or eyeballs

came from outer space.

[bluedawg12]

14. A little more on the scientific method.

I have a little time to wind down before bed and I thought I would just go back to the basics, which I know everyone here already knows, but a little organized refresher for me is fun. :P Besides, the horse .gif is really cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge.

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses.

These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results.

Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results.

Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them.

This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Truth and belief
Main article: Truth
Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if they do not.<15> Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying horse' image as an example of observation: in it, a horse's legs are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action picture by Eadweard Muybridge shows otherwise. Note that at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed, but for when a horse is jumping.


Flying horse depiction: disproven; see below.


Eadweard Muybridge's studies of a horse galloping


Eadweard Muybridge's studies of a horse gallopingEarlier paintings depict the incorrect flying horse observation. This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a proposed explanation about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias.

........
The essential elements<16><17><18> of a scientific method<19> are iterations,<20><21> recursions,<22> interleavings, and orderings of the following:

Characterizations (observations,<23> definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
Hypotheses<24><25> (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)<26>
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction<27> from the hypothesis or theory)
Experiments<28> (tests of all of the above)

[uriel1972]

15. I don't think of science as a belief system,

I think of it as a doubt system :evilgrin:
*ninja edit for spelling

[bluedawg12]

17. Oooh! I like that. :)

That sums it up neatly. :P

[TZ]

16. Well according to some...

The sun only rises cause we skeptics believe it will!
What I wish for the woos is for them to understand the concept of the null hypothesis (considering how many don't even understand what the term hypothesis vs theory actually means that might be asking much).
More even than the scientific method I wish people could understand the concept of subjectivity vs. objectivity..observer bias, anadoctal evidence vs. scientific evidence, logic...etc. Too many basic concepts of rational thought seem to be missing from people's view of the world. No wonder that so many think science is some sort of religion because they can't understand the basic principles..and therefore if they can't understand it..it must be faith based!

[bluedawg12]

19. Well said!

OK, just to make sure I undersatnd, operating on the assumption that there are no stupid questions only stupid mistakes :P

Just check out my thinking, please, TZ.

Hypothesis, a general principle based on a thought, observations or insight.

It is preliminary to a theory.

For example, I might notice that cats seem to favor fish flavored kibbles every time I give them that vs. lamb.

So, my hypothesis is that cats prefer store bought foods that mimic their natural hunting in the wild. They don't catch lambs, but, they might try and fish a pond.

So, I devise an experiment around that ( I have no idea how, but humor me).

I obtain data that seems to trend towards cats in nature, with a cam corder taped to their head, fishing, but never stalking lambs.

Now, I have data and a theory! The theory is that cats prefer fish to lamb because it does mimic their hunting.

The null hypothesis. Oh boy.

Let's say I have a dred research rival and he is determined to prove me wrong.

So, he devises an experiment where he smears lamb with essence of perch to see if it is the size, smell, or location of the food.

Never mind. :eyes:

TZ, could you explain a little about the difference between theory, hypothesis and the null theory. Puhleez, before I come up with another goofy example? :hi:

[TZ]

22. I LOVE your experiment...

I think thats a great example..I think in that case the null hypothesis would be cats don't have a preference re: lamb vs. fish.
I have to get cat food tonight actually and there's a part of me thats soooo tempted to buy different flavors to try it out...:rofl:
Unfortunately since one of my cats LOVES popcorn...I'm not so sure they are good test subjects (mine eat anything and everything pretty much):)

[realisticphish]

18. Oh, the sun WILL come up tomorrow

Bet your bottom dollar.

Tomorrow.

[bluedawg12]

20. Oh Noes! An ear worm!!!!

Sung by a small curly headed red haired girl.

[bluedawg12]

21. Unveiling of my original Finicky Cat Diet research data.

After many minutes of forming my hypothesis, I decided, screw the null hypothesis, as that is a real cipher.

I formulated a research model. I went out in the field and collected data.

Here is photographic proof from the paper (prepublication):

Title: Dietary Preference in Felis catus.

Author: Bluedawg12 and some minions.

Abstract: Cats are finicky eaters. Everyone knows that. We, in our lab, were wondering about this. We duct taped a camera to a specimen of felis catus, in accordance with international guidelines for duct taping cam corders to the head of felis catus.

Conclusion: Not sure, still working on it. Preliminary conclusions and wild speculation using regression analysis and plotting the distance between a single data point and itself we arrived at this photo, our only data point. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings and obtain grant money.