Which came first the Chicken or the Egg & More- Answered.

There's a question I have to say that I dislike - the chicken and egg one - I'm sure you've heard it.  While I'm at it, the statement about the glass being half empty or half full, I'm not fond of that one either.  Scientifically, neither of these hold any water- ok, that was a bad pun, but bear with me and I'll explain.

Let's deal with chickens first.

 "What came first, the chicken or the egg"  Seems harmless enough as a baseline for an analogy to describe an unclear situation.  However its illogical, and a poorly thought out comparison.  Chickens are hatched.  They hatch from eggs.  That, in itself is enough to describe how inane the saying is.  Take it to the next level - where did the first chicken come from, and the idea that it somehow spontaneously developed post birth into some different form is truly silly.  "Man evolves into chimp last Tuesday" kind of thing.  What happened scientifically was something we might describe today as: 50% chicken, 50% 'other' mated with something else that was 50% 'X' and 50% chicken.  The resulting litter of eggs had a number of variants, one of which was a chicken, and it was born from an egg.  Case closed.  Well, almost, as there would have had to have been two of these new creatures to bring about the next batch of eggs and new chickens.  The Adam and Eve of chickens as it were.

Just as an aside, something else new was also probably created in that first chicken litter - something that wasn't the '50% chicken' from either of the parents.  We never hear about that one, do we ?

So, with this air-tight quasi-science now laid out, I hope to never again hear the "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" question.  At the very least, a more appropriate question is "What were the parents of the first chicken ?"  That at least will have you scratching you head a little.

Ok - now - glasses with some water in them, being described as analogies for positive or negative thinkers.  Clearly this one has some deeper thinking behind it, but I'd suggest that even a thirsty pessimist might be tempted to see the water positively.  Moving on and invoking some science once more...

The water in any container will indeed be visible at some height/layer/volume.  The latter word is the critical one, as the volume the water occupies is subject to a few factors - temperature being a large influence.  Roughly speaking all liquids (and water is an exception to the general rule as I'll explain) expand when heated and contracts when cooled.  Water has an exception to this general rule between 0 and 4 degrees celsius.  Water is at it's most contracted at 4 degrees, and as it cools farther towards 0 degrees where is freezes, it expands as the ice molecules create different (larger) bonds.  Thawing back towards 4 degrees, it appears to shrink, until past 4 degrees where it expands as any other liquid. This is kind of interesting in itself, and makes me ask why..

But, back to the question - "Is the glass half full, or half empty?" Well, it depends, as it probably is not static - cold water from the tap or fridge when placed at the half-way point in a container is actually expanding to be more than half full as it warms up.  Likewise a container of hot water placed outside will shrink (also potentially due to evaporation, so the mean humidity level also comes into play). Hopefully it's clear now that the glass is neither half full or half empty, but at a transitionary state whereby a range of factors (and I didn't even mention air pressure) are affecting it.  Science prevails once more.

As to one's perspective in seeing the negative or positive - I'd suggest a simple conversation will illuminate that individual's viewpoint, and no water needs to get involved to determine this.

I'd be happy to take on other simple sayings if you like, right now however I'm thirsty and hungry for  - well, you know.