"Too many cooks spoil the broth"

With the seemingly endless increase in the number of celebrity chefs and cooking shows, this proverb presents a chilling warning. "Beware your present cook levels," it says, "lest your broth be spoiled." In the interests of broth disaster avoidance, Science and Googles have been used to construct the following chart, below.



The earliest recorded broth event (shown here by the red line) occurred at the dawn of time, in 1510. This early form of broth was known as Primordial Soup, and did not require cooks.

When cooks (shown by the blue line) did eventually evolve in 1540, they seemingly did not produce any broth initially. However, most likely their early broth experiments needed time to simmer, which would explain the massive broth spike which occurred in 1620.

Cooks quickly reappeared on the scene in 1630 to see how the broth was doing, and apart from a short vacation at the end of the 1600s they have been brothside ever since in steadily increasing numbers.

Spoilage, (shown by the green line) first makes an appearance around 1900 and rises sharply until 1950. Although cook levels did steadily increase during that time, there was also the biggest broth spike ever seen.

After examining all of this evidence and applying Scientific Logic it quickly becomes clear that far from there being too many cooks, there was in fact too much broth, causing it to overflow onto the floor, thus causing spoilage.

In conclusion then: it's actually too much broth that spoils the broth, and it's not fair to blame the cooks. Remember, there wouldn't be any broth at all without cooks, unless you count Primordial Soup, and that's probably all cold and congealed by now anyway.
 

"Least said soonest mended"

This proverb seems to state that remaining quiet helps to fix things quicker. Perhaps it is suggesting that less distractions lead to faster repairs. But is this really true in every case? For instance, some people like to shout at their computer while they're fixing it, even though their neighbours bang on the wall and threaten to call the police again. Fortunately, Science and Googles have chartified certain facts relating to this, as seen below, in a chart.



Records of amount said (represented by the blue line) have only been kept since the early 1800s, as before then everyone spoke all funny, all like yea, and verily, and so forth.

As can be seen, the amount said fluctuated greatly until around 1940, the time of www.2, also known as the Great War v2.0

Turning our attention to repair speeds (represented by the red line) we can see that they were very slow until around 1850, then there was suddenly a big rush to repair stuff. Probably everything needed fixing at once, because it hadn't been taken care of earlier.

From 1880 to 1910 there was another period of non-repair, because they'd fixed everything up pretty well. The small mend-intensive blip seen around the 1920s was likely due to Jazz Music, which wore out instruments more quickly than the traditional Classical Rock.

During the Great War v2.0 everything needed to be fixed much more quickly because it kept getting blown up. At the same time, much less was said, at least in part because of the risk of loose lips sinking ships, plus I saw this movie where they had to be quiet in a submarine in case a torpedo heard them.

In the 1960s more was said because people loosened up man, and no-one was in a hurry to mend stuff, because of Free Love, and Drugs.

Then with the discovery of Technology in the 1970s, things started to get repaired more quickly, and at the same time the amount said went down, because everyone was typing and texting, and no-one talked to each other much any more. Sad internet face :(

In conclusion then: well it seems that less is said now and stuff gets mended pretty quickly, whereas in the old days everyone was talking at once and nothing got fixed at all, so I guess it's a trade-off. Perhaps the proverb should be, "Least said soonest mended, but that means people don't really talk to each other any more. Is that really what you want? I guess it's a trade-off". Sad internet face :(
 

"A fool and his money are soon parted"

It may sound correct, but where exactly does this claim originate? Do stupid people traditionally have holes in their pockets? Do they throw money at trees and laugh? Because I can tell you, that is not nearly as much fun as it sounds. So are a fool and his money really so soon parted? To answer this question, Science and Googles have been combined to produce a question-answering chart.



A fool, represented by the blue line, first makes his appearance in the early 1500s. We can see that his money, represented by the red line, is not yet present. Possibly he is a court jester, perhaps paid in gruel. Certainly that is one explanation.

In 1560 his money begins to appear, although initially he is not around to enjoy it. Perhaps he is on vacation while his agent negotiates a better deal for him, one in which money features more prominently than gruel.

For much of the early 1600s he is again absent (gruel poisoning?) during which time his money continues to accumulate, so that by the time he does return in 1630 he is comparatively wealthy and can afford all the gruel his heart desires, although to be honest he's probably not the biggest fan of gruel at this point.

Now we see a surprising result: from this point onwards, a fool and his money have never been completely parted again. In fact, from 1700 onwards, a fool and his money have consistently kept pace with each other, and in fact seem to have gone hand in hand. A fool, it seems, is never short of gruel tokens.

In conclusion then: a fool and his money did indeed have a poor relationship initially, but in more recent times have been pretty much constant companions, probably due at least partly to a decreased expenditure on gruel.
 

"A penny saved is a penny earned"

Sense and Logics would seem to indicate that to save a penny, you need to earn it first, otherwise you won't have a penny to save. But as we have seen time and again, to investigate fully it is necessary to put Science and Googles on a chart, then look at it with our eyes.



Here we see that ever since the discovery of the penny in the late 1700s it has been saved, as shown by the blue line.

Oddly, we can also see that penny saving peaked around 1815, at around the same time that penny earning, shown by the red line, had only just begun.

Even more mysteriously, we can see that in the whole of recorded history, far more penny has been saved than earned!

Now we must ask ourselves, in a deep scientist type voice, "How can that much penny be saved when so little penny has been earned? Hmm?". Thankfully this is exactly the sort of question that Science and Googles can answer.



As can be seen, there are numerous sources of penny to consider. These are: penny earned; penny stolen; penny found; pennies from heaven; and the proverbial bad penny.

When all of these penny sources are added together, they probably equal the amount of penny saved (apart from a few penny losts, which of course do not show up on the chart because they are lost).

However, this still leaves the question of how so much penny can be saved back in 1815 before it's even been earned, stolen, found, fallen from heaven, or turned up. And of course, the only Logical answer is, by the use of a Time Machine!

In conclusion then: yes a penny saved is a penny earned, or gained by some other means, as noted above, but then transported back in time to 1815 by means of a Time Machine.
 

"The pen is mightier than the sword"

It is often said that the pen is mightier than the sword, but how can that possibly be? Pens are pointy at the end but they're very short. Swords, on the other hand, are sharp all over and very long. There have been plenty of swordfights, but have you ever heard of a penfight? No. And yet still people persist in claiming superiority for the pen!

In the following analysis I have made extensive use of multiple Sciences and Googles to explore this conundrum, in multichart format.



Here we see that from 1550-1590 and 1710-1790 the pen, represented by the blue line, was temporarily slightly mightier than the sword, represented by the red line. At all other times throughout history however, the sword has always been mightierer than the pen.

Why then has this proverb persisted? One theory which has arisen is that a comma is missing from the original proverb, so that it should actually read, "The pen is, mightier than the sword". Science and Googles can be used to test this hypotenuse.



Clearly, the penis, while continuing to gain popularity, has at no time been mightier than the sword, which is not a surprise really since it isn't even as pointy as a pen. Usually.

To confirm these facts, here is a side-by-side comparison of the pen, sword, and penis, all on top of each other.



In conclusion then: unless you're reading this between 1550-1590 or 1710-1790, the sword is mightier than the pen, and I urge you for your own safety to review this scientific evidence before getting into a fight with a swordsman, particularly if your weapon of choice is a penis.
 

"A bad penny always turns up"

The theory that small-denomination coins constantly return is known as "recurrency". This proverb expands that theory by claiming that even bad coins will come back. Science and Googles have now charted this claim, in a chart.



The bad penny, represented by the blue line, has been around ever since pennies were first discovered in 1790.

As can be seen, bad pennies were indeed on a constant upturn until 1940, just as the proverb insisted they would be.

However, from then until the mid 1980s they experienced a downturn and have only partially turned up again since then, and not even the combined wisdoms of Science and Googles can say why.

In conclusion then: a bad penny sometimes turns up, and sometimes down. In fact they're completely unreliable, so it's no surprise they've got a dubious reputation and people call them 'bad'. Angry internet face >:(
 

"Boys will be boys"

Of course boys are boys, but will they continue to be? The future is impossible to know but with the addition of Science and Googles a chart can be made which accurately predicts it.



Boys, shown by the blue line, have been around since the dawn of history. Their numbers fluctuated initially but after 1700 began to rise steadily, reaching a peak in the mid 1900s. This steady increase is consistent with boys continuing to be boys and therefore increasing in quantity.

However, when we look at the number of future boys, shown by the red line, we can see that there are none at all.

This initially surprising result starts to make perfect sense when you consider that what most boys will become is men. The boy-peak seen in the mid 1900s was probably just formed by a lot of boys standing on each other's shoulders or something.

In conclusion then: boys will be men, not boys, duh.