nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Food and Drug Administration

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food safety, tobacco, dietary supplements, legal medications, vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation-emitting devices (ERED), veterinary products, and cosmetics.
In theory, the FDA's job is to make sure stuff like this will not harm you or rip you off.
In practice, the FDA has done less than a sterling effort in doing that job, especially in recent years. 
Then there are all the recalls after FDA approval: Baycol (2001), Vioxx (2004), Bextra (2005), NeutroSpec (2005), Cylert (2005), Palladone (2005), and Permax (2007).
Finally, there is "CPG Sec. 400.400 Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed" which "The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) recognizes as official the drugs and standards in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States and its supplements (Sections 201 (g)(1) and 501 (b), respectively).", which turns any possible overseeing of the FDA over the homeopathic "drug" market in terms of safe and effective into a bad joke.
As a result, the FDA has four main enemies: consumer advocates who claim that the FDA since 1980 has become too buddy buddy (especially with the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fees Act) with the drug and chemical companies and is not doing its freaking job, alternative medicine, which considers this "science" stuff unconscionable oppression, libertarians, who want to be free to buy and sell any delusional shite imaginable, as the free and sovereign individuals they want to be (just don't die at the hospital which we just privatized!), and the conservatives who consider all these regulations an impediment to business making a profit. 
Libertarian think tank the Independent Institute conducted a study which suggested that many more people die from the lack of drugs that the FDA is slow in approving than would die of the drugs that would be approved in a less rigid approval process due to the FDA potentially suffering greater political penalties from approving bad drugs than from disapproving good ones.http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml 
Due to legal loopholes, some non-functional medications can be sold as long as they include the disclaimer "this statement has not been evaluated by the FDA".
However, the FDA still deserves hard criticism like when it prohibits gay and bisexual men to donate blood and when it spreads misinformation on cannabis.
==References==
Category:United States government
Category:Food
Force

Force is what causes an object to undergo rectilinear acceleration, namely to to change its velocity, which in turns is the rate of change of displacement with respect to time. Mathematically, acceleration is the second derivative of displacement. The SI unit for it is the Newton. Force is a vector, consisting of a magnitude and direction. The resulting acceleration is in exact linear proportion to the magnitude of the force applied, and in the same direction. The constant of proportionality is known as the coefficient of inertia, or, more commonly, mass. The more mass an object has, the more difficult it is to cause a change in motion. This can be easily summarized by Newton's second law, or F = ma.
There are various types of forces, such as air resistance, magnetism, and friction; however, all of them are consequences of fundamental forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. The strong nuclear force holds neutrons to protons in the nucleus of an atom while the weak nuclear force is responsible for radioactive decay. The electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces have already been united into a single electroweak theory, which governed the time when the Universe was very hot and dense, before the two forces broke symmetry.https://web.njit.edu/~gary/202/Lecture26.html 
The strong nuclear force has yet to be united with electroweak in a Grand Unified Theory. The holy grail of physics is to unite this GUT with a quantum theory of gravity to produce a Theory of Everything. At present, however, the Standard Model of particle physics encompasses what physicists know for certain about the three non-gravitational interactions, whereas general relativity is the current theory of gravity.
==No relation to==
*The Force
==References==
Category:Science
Category:Physics
Foreclosure mill

Foreclosure mills are usually third-party businesses that exist solely to sign off on home foreclosures. They sprang up all around the United States in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. These organizations employ a process called "robo-signing," in which the legal documents are electronically signed to speed the process up. Naturally, this has led to a massive number of wrongful foreclosures. In the most egregious cases, banks simply sent out movers without notice to break in to people's houses, haul their stuff off, and leave a nice present, an eviction notice.Suits claim break-ins by banks In many places, sloppiness and fraud were encouraged as employees received gifts for signing more documents and altering their contents.Foreclosure mill employees got gifts Banks have been getting away with this without even having to produce documents proving they own the mortgage. Various states and municipalities have put moratoriums on foreclosure for these reasons, but the practice still continues in many areas.
Two of Trump's cabinet secretaries ran foreclosure mills, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross,Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin—Profiteers of the Great Foreclosure Machine—Go to Washington: Mnuchin and Ross led companies that committed fraud to foreclose on millions of homeowners. Now they will be in charge of the entire US economy. What could go wrong? by David Dayen (November 30, 2016) The Nation. which was possibly the primary qualification for their positions.
==External links==
*Robo-signing
*Foreclosuregate
==References==
Category:Financial crisis of 2007 to 2009
Category:United States law
Category:Crime
Category:Financial fraud
Forgotten History of the Western People

Forgotten History of the Western People () is a pseudohistorical Young Earth creationist (YEC) book by Mike Gascoigne. It was first published in 2002. 
== Contents ==
Gascoigne's starting point is that the Genesis narrative is literal history. He maintains that after the Tower of Babel, the descendants of Noah's son Japheth were dispersed by God into Europe where they became the ancestral stock of white Europeans or Westerners (pp. 46-90). He identifies Japheth with Iapetus, a Titan of Greek mythology (p. 47). While this particular identification has Though Gascoigne clams that the made this association during the Greco-Roman period that text was probably compiled in the Christian era (sometime between the second and sixth century CE), albeit by someone steeped in the Greek literary tradition. there is no evidence for it — the supposed equivalence is based solely on the similarity of their names.And a, perhaps unconscious, view of history. The rest of Gascoigne's identifications of Japheth's descendants (as listed in Genesis) with Greek mythological figures all range from unsubstantiated to fraudulent (such as citing the 15th century forger work as evidence). When he can't use such (pseudo)philology to twist Greek mythological figures into resembling the names of Japheth's descendants, Gascoigne claims that the Greeks fabricated their own genealogies to "spice them up" because they were bored of their real Biblical roots (p. 49). The book then skips from the legendary Kings of Britain to the Anglo-Saxons, who Gascoigne claims were descendants of Japheth through a Trojan bloodline (pp. 91-132). Again, no evidence is provided.
== Reception ==
The work is not taken seriously by historians. Gascoigne himself only showcases positive reviews from fellow YECs, with the exception of a review by Michael Tunnicliffe, of the Manchester Ancient Egypt Society, who admits "others will regard it as typically speculative 'alternative' writing."Forgotten History of the Western People: Review by Michael Tunnicliffe." Anno Mundi Books. 2003 June. 
In 2006, the book was listed by the Creation Science Movement as their third most popular book.
==Notes==
==References==
__NOTOC__
Category:Creationism
Category:Religious books
Category:Pseudohistory
Fork

A fork is a utensil used for scooping up and stabbing foreign dignitaries food.
The use of metal forks is believed to be a Roman development, inspired by bone forks encountered in the Middle East.
While the fork was a regular sight at Roman tables as early as the tenth century, it took eight hundred years to reach as far west as Britain.
==Moral panics==
The fork is a good example of how moral panics have used the same basic arguments for centuries.
Opposition to fork-eating in Europe lasted from the Renaissance to the eighteenth century.
There were three common arguments against the use of forks, which often tied in with each other. 
===Satanism===
The fork was frequently compared with Satan's pitchfork (both of which stemming from the same Latin word, furca) whether for serious reasons or just for satire. Why this logic was never extended to peasants' pitchforks (or the military pole arms derived from them) remains to be seen.
This led to the Elizabethan English writer Thomas Coryat being dubbed "Furcifer" by those who disagreed with his table manners.Michael Strachan, "Coryate, Thomas (c. 1577–1617)", in Literature of Travel and Exploration: an Encyclopedia, 2003, Volume 1, pp.285–87.
At this time it was mostly Muslims who ate with forks anyway.Harry Roolaart, "The Irrational Exhuberance of American Dining Etiquette: Part I", in The Rational Argumentator: A Journal for Western Man, Issue IX.
===Blasphemy===
Based on Aristotelian teleology, it was also argued that God had already created fingers to fill the very function that forks were now competing for. Thus, forks were seen as an affront to His masterpiece. Again, for some reason this logic was never applied to weapons, other tools, or even clothes.
The death of Byzantine Princess Theodora Doukaina from a degenerative illness was thought to be divine punishment for this act, otherwise seen as "excessive delicacy".Bridget Ann Henisch, Fast and Feast: Food in Medieval Society (1976), pp.185–186.
===Machismo===
People who used forks were said to "lack machismo" and were considered flamboyantly effeminate.
"Real men", you see, dug their long and dirt-encrusted fingernails fingers deep into the food instead — the same fingers they also used to excavate an exciting range of bodily orifices.
==Other uses==
"Fork" is also a term for online communities and their projects splitting. Sometimes the issues leading to a fork can be trivial, sometimes they can be fundamental issues about what the project should be about (e.g. should advertisement be accepted). Forks can be friendly and in good nature or result in a state of quasi cold war between the two new communities.
==See also==
*:Template:Fork — the RationalWiki tool for disambiguating similar topics
*Uri Geller — a bender of spoons but his powers are apparently too weak to bend forks
==References==
Category:Moral panics
Formal fallacy

A formal fallacy is a logical fallacy that violates a particular rule of propositional calculus, such as modus ponens. These fallacies can be determined to be invalid simply by the inspection of the form or structure of the argument — at heart, a formal fallacy contains some sort of non sequitur. This doesn't necessarily mean that a conclusion is wrong, but it does mean that we will need a better reason or argument to derive the conclusion.
Formal fallacies are propositional, quantificational, syllogistical, modal, or fallacy fallacy.
==Examples==
For example, given the syllogism of:
It doesn't matter what X, Y and Z actually are. If the statement is incorrect because of the content of X, Y or Z, it would be an informal fallacy, not a formal fallacy because the logic works out. The difference can often be difficult to spot because we may have trouble splitting the content of an argument from its form.
Consider the following proposition:
Some people immediately want to say "yes" in response to this, and take the proposition to be correct because this is what reality reflects. However, this is actually an inference beyond what the logical set up allows us to make, which being either that some men who are doctors are tall or that some tall men are doctors, since the height and gender of doctors are separate traits; neither would make the argument more valid than the other as there is a Phantom distinction between the two phrasings, as the mode III or IEE has an undistributed middle though it may draw a possible conclusion. Saying that "some men are tall" or technically even that either some men who are doctors are tall or that some tall men are doctors given the first two premises is a formal logical fallacy. Why this is so can be more easily highlighted by replacing "tall" with a different property, such as "are women" to yield:
This doesn't change the logical structure of the argument, but the fallacy is easier to spot because the content changes it to a more obvious absurdity and still would even if the inference were within what the logical set up allows us to make. 
More formally, this is not a valid rule of inference in predicate logic:
: \cfrac{\exists x (P(x) \land Q(x)) \qquad \exists x (Q(x) \land R(x))}{\exists x (P(x) \land R(x))}
while this is:
: \cfrac{\exists x (P(x) \land Q(x)) \qquad \exists x (Q(x) \land R(x))}{\exists x (P(x) \land Q(x) \land R(x))}
because the first and second x are different bound variables.
==Subfallacies==
==See also==
*Fallacious argument style
*Conditional fallacy
==External links==
*Formal, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
*Formal Fallacy, Fallacy Files
Fortune cookie

A fortune cookie is a crisp cookie usually made from flour, sugar, vanilla, and sesame seed oil with a "fortune" wrapped inside. The exact origin of fortune cookies is unclear, though various immigrant groups in California claim to have popularized them in the early 20th century, basing their recipe on a traditional Japanese cracker.
=="Sacred lots"==
The fortune aspect of the cookie derives from the Japanese practice of (御御籤, お神籤, or おみくじ o-mikuji?), which are random fortunes written on strips of paper at Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples in Japan. The word translates as "sacred lot." The o-mikuji predicts the person's chances of their hopes coming true, of finding a good match, or generally matters of health, fortune, life, etc.
Unlike fortune cookies, O-Mikuji have just as many bad fortunes. When the prediction is bad, it is a custom to fold up the strip of paper and attach it to a pine tree or a wall of metal wires alongside other bad fortunes in the temple or shrine grounds. A purported reason for this custom is a pun on the word for pine tree (松 matsu) and the verb 'to wait' (待つ matsu), the idea being that the bad luck will wait by the tree rather than attach itself to the bearer.
==Fortune selling==
Fortune cookies sell much better when they don't have negative fortunes. They also use a wide variety of vaguely Confucian sounding proverbs, just to add just a pinch of truth to the recipe.A History of Fugetsu-Do, www.fugetsu-do.com Fortune cookies are often considered to be jokes, unlike similar fortune-predicting methods, like horoscopes.
==In other media==
 is a program present on Unix-like systems that displays a (pseudo)random quote chosen from a database, some like those found on fortune cookies (hence the name).
==Other semi-random forms of divination==
*Apophenia
*Tasseography
*Horoscope
*Tarot
*I Ching
*Molybdomancy
==Notes==
==References==
Category:California
Category:Folklore
Category:Food woo
Category:Magic
Forumbiodiversity

Forumbiodiversity is a self-titled "Anthropology Biodiversity Forum". Like other human biodiversity sites, the forum's intention is to present scientific racism as acceptable anthropology. Most posters are white supremacists or other racists. The forum has been repeatedly hacked by Muslims who perceive the site as Islamophobic.
==History==
The forum was founded in late 2009 by user "EliasAlucard" who posts as a moderator. According to Elias, Forumbiodiversity "is the heir and successor of Human Biodiversity Forum (2006-2008) and AnthroForum (2008-2009). Both these forums are now defunct and no longer operational, which is why ABF launched on 2009-10-22".Policy Announcement Forumbiodiversity. Nov 22, 2009. Unlike Anthroscape where the founder tries to falsely present himself as apolitical to sound like an "objective race realist", Elias is at least open about holding far-right views, also calling himself an "eco-fascist". The site has been attacked numerous times both by Anonymous, who criticize the forum's racist posters, mostly Elias himself,Anonymous against ForumBiodiversity and by a number of Muslim hackers (specifically a "Gaza hacker"Forum restored. Forumbiodiversity. Aug 29, 2013.) who criticize the site as hosting anti-Islamic postings.
==HBD Forum rivalry==
Forumbiodiversity is seen as the main HBD competitor to Anthroscape. Both forums have attack threads against each other. Elias was banned from Anthroscape after debating the administrator, "Racial Reality".Elias banning thread Anthroscape. Feb 23. 2013. In response, posters at Forumbiodiversity have branded "Racial Reality" a "fake race realist", a troll etc.
==See also==
* Mikemikev - poster on the forumhttp://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=49689&p=1341021
* Human Phenotypes
* Anthroscape
* Bonesandbehaviours
* Hbdchick
==External links==
* Forumbiodiversity
==References==
Category:Pseudoscience
Category:Racism
Category:Websites
Category:Internet hate sites
Category:Alt-right
Category:Islamophobia
Fossil record

The fossil record is the set of all fossils - and it just happens to chart the course of evolution through time. It is one of the most significant pieces of supporting evidence for the idea that evolution is a rational and real explanation for the origin of the diversity of species. In general, the term "fossil record" refers to all fossils that have been excavated, examined and characterized so far by thousands of hardworking scientists and paleontologists over the last few hundred years. The fossil record is used as evidence for many of things, including for common descent, for mass extinctions, for the Cambrian explosion and for the fact that the Earth is considerably older than 6000 years. Plus for flood geology.
At the same time, the fossil record is yet another thing which shows that creationist ideas are untenable. Creationists like to claim that there are no transitional fossils (fossils that fill the "gaps" between one species and another) in the fossil record. This is probably because if one was presented to them, they would point out that there are now two new gaps on either side of it for which no transitional forms exist. Either that, or they are convinced that the fossil record is a hoax. But to scientists working on real research, the fossil record is a vital piece of evidence to study.
Due to the relative rarity of fossil formation (with factors such as time, location and pure luck governing what we can find), and the natural destruction of rock that holds fossils, it is unlikely that the fossil record will ever be 100% complete and comprehensive. Creationists don't (or don't want to) understand this, and insist that the absence of a single fossil disproves evolution outright. Scientists and palaeontologists who do understand how fossilisation works note that we can derive a lot of information from what we do have rather than dwelling on the information that we don't have/haven't found yet.
==See also==
*Out-of-place fossils
Category:Geology
Category:Evolution
Category:Evidence against a recent creation
Four-term fallacy

A four-term fallacy (also quaternio terminorum, fallacy of four terms, and if using equivocation, ambiguous middle term) occurs when a syllogism uses four or more terms instead of the required three.
The fallacy is a formal fallacy, because the conclusion does not follow even if the premises are correct.
==Form==
A four term fallacy uses (at least) four terms, represented here as letters W, X, Y, and Z. The fallacy (when limited to 4 terms) takes two forms. First, where the premises contain 4 terms:
Second, where a new term is introduced in the conclusion:
In both cases, the conclusion does not follow, because all of the terms used in the conclusion are not used in the premises. Compare this to a proper syllogism:
Here, only three terms (X, Y, and Z) are used, and both terms used in the conclusion are used in the premises.
Often, however, the four term fallacy technically uses only three apparent terms, but the truth of either premise and the conclusion or both premises depends on the alternation of two meanings of one term:
Second, where the middle term alternates two meanings (ambiguous middle term proper):
Third, where the predicate alternates two meanings:
==Examples==
Using the first form:
Using the second form:
Many first-cause arguments are based on a four-term fallacy:
Wow, that God really came out of nowhere! *ba-dum-tss*
==See also==
*Equivocation, one of the most common four-term fallacies
==External links==
*
*Fallacy of Four Terms, Logically Fallacious
Category:Formal fallacies
Four Spiritual Laws

The Four Spiritual Laws is an evangelistic Christian tract created in 1952 by Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ.Campus Crusade for Christ The concept is also used by The Navigators.
Bright wrote the booklet as a means to clearly explain the essentials of the Christian faith concerning salvation as he saw it. Campus Crusade for Christ claim to have distributed 2.5 billion copies of the tract.
==The laws==
This is the original version; other variants exist.
#God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.(, )
#Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life.(, )
#Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience God's love and plan for your life.(, -6, )
#We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives. (, ,9, -8, )
==Second place==
For some the rest of the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament appear less important than the four laws.
==See also==
*Christian fundamentalism
*Chick tract
*Personal savior
==References==
Category:Christianity