"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.
 

"Fact is stranger than fiction"

Fiction can be pretty strange, for instance this one book I read which was just a list of words in alphabetical order. Can fact really be stranger? Science and Googles have the answer.



Strange fact, shown by the blue line, makes two appearances during the 1600s. The first of these, from 1630-1650, is shaped just like some kind of weird skyscraper type thing! That's how strange fact can be!

Strange fiction on the other hand, shown by the red line, doesn't even get off the ground until around 1800, and even then it just sort of wiggles around a bit before falling down again. Perhaps that's a bit strange, but it's clearly not as strange as fact.

In conclusion then: fact definitely is stranger than fiction. That one book I read was probably misleading, and I seriously doubt now that it was even true.
 

"It's no use crying over spilled milk"

Proverbs often sound confusing or inaccurate, but this one is an exception. Crying over spilled milk will obviously create even more liquid to clean up, and that's not very useful in most situations, so it definitely seems to make perfect sense. However it is still important to check the relevant facts with Science and Googles, just to make certain, in chart format.



The red line at the bottom of the chart represents a puddle of spilled milk. This puddle extends all the way from the beginning of history to the present day. Clearly, milk is a highly spillable substance and time has done nothing to change that.

Tears, represented by the blue line, were first discovered in the early 1500s, but were initially unpopular because no-one could work out what to do with them.

With the advent of usefulness, shown by the green line, in 1560, tears were experimented with again, to see what use they were.

As can be seen, the results of this experiment were initially wildly inconsistent, with everyone howling during one decade and then snivelling quietly for the next. This was mildly useful at first, but by the late 1700s it was almost no use to anyone at all.

However, since around 1800 people have found ways to make tears more efficient, so that fewer tears are needed to achieve the same degree of usefulness, making them much more useful.

Scientific Logic informs us that some of this usefulness must surely relate to spilled milk, particularly since it's right there in a puddle at the bottom of the chart.

In conclusion then: it does seem that tears in general can be useful, and that this usefulness must in some way interact with spilled milk, perhaps acting as a preservative due to salt content. So, it is some use to cry over spilled milk after all! Isn't Science amazing?
 

"Every cloud has a silver lining"

It is often said that every cloud has a silver lining, regardless of the fact that you can never see one, not even up close in an airplane. Science and Googles have now been chartulated to investigate this claim.



As you can see, in the mid to late 1600's there were many clouds (represented here by the blue line), which is why this period of history was called The Dark Ages, as in, "It's been dark for ages".

During this period a small proportion of clouds had linings (represented by the red line). Little is now known about these linings except that they were probably quite primitive in construction, due to widespread ignorance.

Happily from 1675-1720 there were far fewer clouds, and things brightened up a bit. But then came the Industrious Resolution, with millions of factories pumping out Steam and Pollutions from giant Smokestacks and filling the skies with clouds again.

This situation reached a peak around 1890, but by 1900 cloud production had already begun to decline. This was due to an improvement in the quality of cloud linings, which as can be seen rose steadily from 1800 onwards.

At this stage we are now ready to observe the number of silver linings (represented by the green line) throughout the entire period of history covered by this chart. And shockingly, as you can see, there have been none. Not a single one!

In conclusion then: no, not every cloud has a silver lining, and in fact it turns out that none of them do. Which makes perfect sense if you think about it because of how heavy silver is, and I have to say, I never really believed this one to start with.
 

"Ignorance is bliss"

Is ignorance really bliss? Are stupid people really happier? Before Science and Googles there was no way to know for sure, but now at last we are able to produce this chart.



The period from 1760-1790 saw ignorance enjoying the height of its popularity. The minor fluctuations seen during that time are due to the fact that people sometimes thought of clever stuff, but they were too stupid to remember it.

As you can see, bliss levels during this period were zero. This is because no-one had even invented bliss yet, that's how dumb they were.

Suddenly in 1791 bliss levels began to rise. Probably it wasn't technically bliss at this stage, more of a pleasant warm feeling, but it was a start. Sadly the name of the inventor of bliss is lost to the frowny face of history :(

By the early 1820s bliss levels had reached an all-time high, after which they slowly declined before settling down to their present-day level.

By contrast, ignorance at this time briefly peaked due to everyone sitting around grinning like idiots, then went into a steep decline, due to the advent of Science, and Googles.

In conclusion then: is ignorance really bliss? Sadly not.
 

"There's no such thing as a free lunch"

Many people insist there's no such thing as a free lunch. Am I alone in suspecting that most of them probably own restaurants? Thankfully now we have Googles and Science, which combine in chart format and which are oblivious to the biased arguments of restaurateurs.



In conclusion then: ha!
 

"A rolling stone gathers no moss"

It's often said that a rolling stone gathers no moss, but is this literally true? To find out, a chart was made combining Science and Googles.



The stone is shown in blue, rolling along the ground on the bottom of the chart. The amount of moss gathered is indicated by the red line above it.

As you can see, from 1800-1810 the stone actually gathers moss very quickly. However it's way too early to draw any conclusions yet because the stone has just started rolling, so it's probably not going fast enough to stop moss from gathering.

From 1810-1825 as the stone picks up speed, there is indeed a steady decline in the amount of moss gathered. Perhaps 'they' were right after all.

However from 1825-1900, despite some fluctuations, there's a steady increase in the amount of moss gathered, to the extent that by 1900 there's probably no room left on the stone for any more moss.

Unsurprisingly this overcrowding causes moss accumulation to decrease rapidly, until by 1985 the stone's popularity as a moss gathering destination has reached its lowest point.

Since then however, there has been a steady upswing in moss gathering until the present time, suggesting a renewed interest in stone-based moss accumulation.

This is probably because as the stone lost popularity among the moss population it became less densely moss-populated ('mossulated'), until it became a desirable moss-gathering venue again.

This is likely a cyclic phenomenon, as future Googles may demonstrate.

In conclusion then: does a rolling stone gather no moss? The answer would seem to be no, yes it does. Then yes, no it doesn't again, and so on.
 

"While the cat's away, the mice will play"

There has long been a theory which states that if no cat is present, mice will engage in a variety of leisure activities. Could this really be true? Science and Googles have observed mouse/feline interactions and produced this chart.



As you can see, from 1800 to the present day, cat absence levels (represented here by the blue line) have fluctuated wildly, due to the unpredictable nature of felines and the availability of warmer places with better food, regardless of the fact that you do everything you can to please the ungrateful little beasts.

Mouse recreation levels on the other hand (shown here in red) remain resolutely at zero regardless of the presence or otherwise of Tiddles. Mice, it seems, simply refuse to enjoy themselves under any circumstances.

In conclusion then: it appears that while the cat's away mocking your kindness, the mice will stubbornly continue to sulk and fixate on cheese. And not play.
 

"Two heads are better than one"

Some people say two heads are better than one. Exactly how many of them have ever had two heads though? Luckily we no longer have to rely on such dubious claims because we have Googles and Science to make a chart.





As you can see, throughout history the quality of two heads, indicated by the blue line, and the quality of one head, indicated by the red line, have remained at a constant level.

Somewhat surprisingly, that level is zero. Clearly, heads are no good at all, in any amount.

In conclusion then: two heads are just as bad as one. Heads generally are of a very low quality, and simply adding more heads does nothing at all to improve the situation.