Bizarre Weather

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

After weeks of bitter cold, today was one of those rare January flying days
in the upper Midwest that literally convinced everyone to go flying. I
haven't seen (and heard) this much GA traffic since last summer.

Usually, when we get a warm day in January, the wind howls out of the south.
Today, not a wisp of wind fluttered the flags -- and the calm covered a huge
area. Further, because of the extensive snow cover, a temperature inversion
formed, with 47 degree air at 3500 feet, and 33 degree air at the surface.
When this happens, usually fog or clouds form -- but today was CAVU, with
stunning visibility.

We flew from Iowa City to Prairie du Chein, WI, and saw nary a cloud, and
felt nary a bump, despite all weather circumstances pointing to the
development of such conditions.

Just goes to show you that weather is still as much a mystery than a
science. But after such an unusually harsh winter, we'll gladly take the
occasional pleasant surprise...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:DVcnj.4739$9j6.2291@attbi_s22:

> After weeks of bitter cold, today was one of those rare January flying
> days in the upper Midwest that literally convinced everyone to go
> flying. I haven't seen (and heard) this much GA traffic since last
> summer.
>
> Usually, when we get a warm day in January, the wind howls out of the
> south. Today, not a wisp of wind fluttered the flags -- and the calm
> covered a huge area. Further, because of the extensive snow cover, a
> temperature inversion formed, with 47 degree air at 3500 feet, and 33
> degree air at the surface. When this happens, usually fog or clouds
> form -- but today was CAVU, with stunning visibility.
>
> We flew from Iowa City to Prairie du Chein, WI, and saw nary a cloud,
> and felt nary a bump, despite all weather circumstances pointing to
> the development of such conditions.
>
> Just goes to show you that weather is still as much a mystery than a
> science.

Only to science deniers..


Bertie

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-01-28, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Just goes to show you that weather is still as much a mystery than a
> science. But after such an unusually harsh winter, we'll gladly take the
> occasional pleasant surprise...

No - not really; a stable atmosphere where there's insufficient
condensation nuclei or insufficient relative humidity, fog won't form
and the visibility can be quite good. You can also get poor visibility
with unstable air, happened quite often when I lived in Houston.

The general case (unstable air, rough, good visibility; stable air,
smooth, terrible visibility) is just the general case. There are
conditions that can result in something other than the general case. No
particular mystery!

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[NW_Pilot]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-01-28, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Just goes to show you that weather is still as much a mystery than a
>> science. But after such an unusually harsh winter, we'll gladly take the
>> occasional pleasant surprise...
>
> No - not really; a stable atmosphere where there's insufficient
> condensation nuclei or insufficient relative humidity, fog won't form
> and the visibility can be quite good. You can also get poor visibility
> with unstable air, happened quite often when I lived in Houston.
>
> The general case (unstable air, rough, good visibility; stable air,
> smooth, terrible visibility) is just the general case. There are
> conditions that can result in something other than the general case. No
> particular mystery!
>

Cold Clear = Nice Solid Air Usually

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> Usually, when we get a warm day in January, the wind howls out of the
> south. Today, not a wisp of wind fluttered the flags -- and the calm
> covered a huge area. Further, because of the extensive snow cover, a
> temperature inversion formed, with 47 degree air at 3500 feet, and 33
> degree air at the surface. When this happens, usually fog or clouds form
> -- but today was CAVU, with stunning visibility.
....
> Just goes to show you that weather is still as much a mystery than a
> science.

Luckily, today's science is a bit more advanced.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Usually, when we get a warm day in January, the wind howls out of the
>> south. Today, not a wisp of wind fluttered the flags -- and the calm
>> covered a huge area. Further, because of the extensive snow cover, a
>> temperature inversion formed, with 47 degree air at 3500 feet, and 33
>> degree air at the surface. When this happens, usually fog or clouds
>> form -- but today was CAVU, with stunning visibility.
> ...
>> Just goes to show you that weather is still as much a mystery than a
>> science.
>
> Luckily, today's science is a bit more advanced.

Well, all we had to do was wait 15 hours. Today we have a "Wind Advisory",
it's overcast, and with poor visibility -- far more in keeping with the norm
for a January warm spell...

Yesterday was a real gem -- best warm-weather (relatively speaking, of
course) January flying day I've seen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A3331C064B4A****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

> Only to science deniers..

I am a firm believer in Darwin's Weather Evolution principal.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Judah > wrote in news:Xns9A336402EBA45Judahnospamnet@
209.197.15.254:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A3331C064B4A****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
>> Only to science deniers..
>
> I am a firm believer in Darwin's Weather Evolution principal.
>
>

Unfortunately, it matters not if oyu believe or not if the assholes around
you don't.


Bertie

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A33978FFFC45****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

> Unfortunately, it matters not if oyu believe or not if the assholes around
> you don't.

It matters to me what I believe, just as it matters to you what you
believe...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> news:Xns9A33978FFFC45****upropeeh@ 207.14.116.130:
>
>> Unfortunately, it matters not if oyu believe or not if the assholes
>> around you don't.
>
> It matters to me what I believe, just as it matters to you what you
> believe...
>

Oh, I wasn't suggesting anything else.

But in fact, I don't go in for belief so much anyway..

I regard it as almost a neccesary evil until such time as I actually *do*
know it all.


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Jan 28, 8:36*am, Judah > wrote:
>>
> It matters to me what I believe, just as it matters to you what you
> believe...

A mans gotta believe in something.

I believe.........Ill have another beer.

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Jan 27, 11:32*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> After weeks of bitter cold, today was one of those rare January flying days
> in the upper Midwest that literally convinced everyone to go flying. *I
> haven't seen (and heard) this much GA traffic since last summer.

The sudden change from bitterly cold to warm weather has been the
norm this winter in the Northeast. We have done quite a bit of
flying training/practicing for our commerical ratings this winter (had
over 20hrs in the first two weeks of the year). The GA traffic was as
busy as during the summer. About 2 weeks ago, we had several days in
the 60's then the temp dipped to the low teens. It is warming up to
the 40's this week. Unfortunately with both the plane and pilots out
of commision (a broken wing flap cable bracket for the cardinal and a
terrible cold for both of us), it will a week or two before we can get
back on the air to finish our ratings.


> We flew from Iowa City to Prairie du Chein, WI, and saw nary a cloud, and
> felt nary a bump, despite all weather circumstances pointing to the
> development of such conditions.

Umm, I think this is at least the third time that you mispelled
Prairie Du Chien. It's no big deal but it bugs me enough that I have
to point it out ;-). About the calm weather, in our few last flights,
it was just dead calm that we had fun pretending that our Cardinal had
an autopilot and flew without touching the yoke and the pedals while
maintaining our goal of 2-2-20 (2 degrees of heading, 2 knots of speed
and 20' of altitude deviations).

> Just goes to show you that weather is still as much a mystery than a
> science. *But after such an unusually harsh winter, we'll gladly take the

Weather prediction may not be an exact science but it is quite an
advanced sicence. NOAA report had predicted an above-average winter
temperatures

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071009_outlook.html

Our electric bill for the last two months was only $100. The bill
showed the total degrees in comparison for the same two-month period
last year and it was indeed significantly warmer. Well, for those who
use air-conditioning in the summer (we don't), the winter electric
bill saving will be insignificant in comparison to the summer bill if
this warming trend continues.

Hai Longworth

[Gene Seibel]

On Jan 27, 10:32*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> After weeks of bitter cold, today was one of those rare January flying days
> in the upper Midwest that literally convinced everyone to go flying. *I
> haven't seen (and heard) this much GA traffic since last summer.
>
Same thing here in the St Louis area. Everyone came out of
hibernation.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Judah" > wrote

> I am a firm believer in Darwin's Weather Evolution principal.

Huh ? ? ?

That went "wooosh" right over my head, I'm afraid! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Judah]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A33A03F81825****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

>> It matters to me what I believe, just as it matters to you what you
>> believe...
>
> Oh, I wasn't suggesting anything else.

I know you weren't. I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical
scientific theory and those who believe in them.

> I regard it as almost a neccesary evil until such time as I actually *do*
> know it all.

You can't know it all. You can only believe you know it all.

;)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> news:Xns9A33A03F81825****upropeeh@ 207.14.116.130:
>
>>> It matters to me what I believe, just as it matters to you what you
>>> believe...
>>
>> Oh, I wasn't suggesting anything else.
>
> I know you weren't. I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the
> typical scientific theory and those who believe in them.
>
>> I regard it as almost a neccesary evil until such time as I actually
>> *do* know it all.
>
> You can't know it all. You can only believe you know it all.
>
> ;)
>

I knew that.

Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Morgans" wrote:

>
> "Judah" > wrote
>
>> I am a firm believer in Darwin's Weather Evolution principal.
>
> Huh ? ? ?
>
> That went "wooosh" right over my head, I'm afraid! <g>

Darwin didn't have a Weather Evolution principal.

Only Judah knows what the hell he's talking about, and he's being coy.

Maybe he's hoping someone will ask him.

Let's not.

--
Dan

"Don't make me nervous when I'm carryin' a baseball bat."
- Big Joe Turner

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Longworth" wrote:


>> Just goes to show you that weather is still as much a mystery than a
>> science. But after such an unusually harsh winter, we'll gladly take the

> Weather prediction may not be an exact science but it is quite an
> advanced sicence.

It is politically important to some people to deny that.

After all, if scientists can't exactly predict the weather, how can they
predict the climate?

....and what science *is* exact?

--
Dan

"The future has actually been here for a while, it's just not readily
available to everyone."
- some guy at MIT

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13psvq57uopsof0
@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Morgans" wrote:
>
>>
>> "Judah" > wrote
>>
>>> I am a firm believer in Darwin's Weather Evolution principal.
>>
>> Huh ? ? ?
>>
>> That went "wooosh" right over my head, I'm afraid! <g>
>
> Darwin didn't have a Weather Evolution principal.
>
> Only Judah knows what the hell he's talking about, and he's being coy.
>
> Maybe he's hoping someone will ask him.
>
> Let's not.
>

I know what he meant.

Pretty obvious , I thought.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Longworth" wrote:
>
>
>>> Just goes to show you that weather is still as much a mystery than a
>>> science. But after such an unusually harsh winter, we'll gladly take
>>> the
>
>> Weather prediction may not be an exact science but it is quite an
>> advanced sicence.
>
> It is politically important to some people to deny that.
>
> After all, if scientists can't exactly predict the weather, how can
> they predict the climate?


Actually, weather prediction is very good nowadays.

Very good.

We get working flight logs which are generated a few hours before our
flights. They have forecast winds on them for each waypoint and each
altitude. They're generally accuraes within a few knots and a few degrees.
15 years ago, they were guessing about a lot of things, These days,, not so
much...


>
> ...and what science *is* exact?
>

None, but none claims to be.

[Matt Whiting]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> On 2008-01-28, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> Just goes to show you that weather is still as much a mystery than a
>>> science. But after such an unusually harsh winter, we'll gladly take
>>> the occasional pleasant surprise...
>>
>> No - not really; a stable atmosphere where there's insufficient
>> condensation nuclei or insufficient relative humidity, fog won't form
>> and the visibility can be quite good. You can also get poor visibility
>> with unstable air, happened quite often when I lived in Houston.
>>
>> The general case (unstable air, rough, good visibility; stable air,
>> smooth, terrible visibility) is just the general case. There are
>> conditions that can result in something other than the general case. No
>> particular mystery!
>>
>
> Cold Clear = Nice Solid Air Usually

Isn't solid air a little rough on the airframe? :-)

Matt

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>> After all, if scientists can't exactly predict the weather, how can
>> they predict the climate?
>
>
> Actually, weather prediction is very good nowadays.
>
> Very good.

Indeed.

But it is a common talking point of U. S. right wing global warming deniers
that it isn't because it rained in Peoria one day when it wasn't supposed to.

>> ...and what science *is* exact?
>>
>
> None, but none claims to be.

Just so.


--
Dan

"The future has actually been here for a while, it's just not readily
available to everyone."
- some guy at MIT

[Longworth[_1_]]

Dan,
It is my poor choice of words. What I meant is that weather
prediction is not 100% accurate. Since it is a science and not math,
perfect precision is neither expected nor required. Anyway, I only
watch the weather and not the mystery channel before flying ;-)

Hai Longworth

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>> After all, if scientists can't exactly predict the weather, how can
>>> they predict the climate?
>>
>>
>> Actually, weather prediction is very good nowadays.
>>
>> Very good.
>
> Indeed.
>
> But it is a common talking point of U. S. right wing global warming
> deniers that it isn't because it rained in Peoria one day when it
> wasn't supposed to.

I know.

>
>>> ...and what science *is* exact?
>>>
>>
>> None, but none claims to be.
>
> Just so.

Well, some comfort can be taken in the fact that at least some progress
seems to have been made and perhaps the momentum will continue.




Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Longworth" wrote:

> Dan,
> It is my poor choice of words. What I meant is that weather
> prediction is not 100% accurate. Since it is a science and not math,
> perfect precision is neither expected nor required. Anyway, I only
> watch the weather and not the mystery channel before flying ;-)

I knew what you meant, Hai.

See you at OSH this summer?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

Umm, I think this is at least the third time that you mispelled
Prairie Du Chien. It's no big deal but it bugs me enough that I have
to point it out ;-).
************************************************** *********************************************
Hey -- here's that phenomenon others have pointed out. My response to your
response is NOT putting little carrots (">") in front of your quoted words.
Wonder what's up with that...?

Anywho, I know -- I HATE the name "Prairie du Chien". No matter how I spell
it, it looks wrong. I've been there 500 times, and I STILL can't get it
right... Some sort of mental block, apparently...

But, hey, you misspelled "mispelled" and "sicence" (below) -- so we're even!

:-)
************************************************** *********************************************
Weather prediction may not be an exact science but it is quite an
advanced sicence. NOAA report had predicted an above-average winter
temperatures

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071009_outlook.html

Our electric bill for the last two months was only $100. The bill
showed the total degrees in comparison for the same two-month period
last year and it was indeed significantly warmer.
************************************************** *********************************************
Just the opposite here. They predicted a warmer-than-average winter, and we
have the coldest winter since we moved here in '97. It's been bitter, with
almost daily snowfall -- and our heating bills have skyrocketed. (Of
course, our natural gas rates were raised 23% this month, without fanfare.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-29, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> But, hey, you misspelled "mispelled" and "sicence" (below) -- so we're even!

It's an Internet tradition: a comment on someone's spelling must itself
contain misspellings.

> Just the opposite here. They predicted a warmer-than-average winter, and we
> have the coldest winter since we moved here in '97. It's been bitter, with
> almost daily snowfall -- and our heating bills have skyrocketed. (Of
> course, our natural gas rates were raised 23% this month, without fanfare.)

Yeah.

Now, I need to go shovel some global warming out of my driveway...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Judah]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:FVtnj.68$zV2.51
@newsfe06.lga:

> "Judah" > wrote
>> I am a firm believer in Darwin's Weather Evolution principal.
>
> Huh ? ? ?
> That went "wooosh" right over my head, I'm afraid! <g>

Hi Jim,

I've evaluated 3 responses:

1) Perhaps you need to increase your altitude next time. ;)

2) Wow! I didn't think anyone else actually read my drivel! :)

3) It was a poke at people who think that we as humans actually know
everything (like how to predict the weather). Combine that with a knock on
those who would support their opinions by expressing their dogma in the form
of scientific and/or religious laws, and you come away with just the
slightest taste of that cynical mesh of liquid wiring that I like to call my
sense of humor.


My apologies to Dan and anyone else who was not interested in the bandwidth
wasted by the oft-erratic sputterings of my acetylcoline.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-01-28, Judah > wrote:
> I know you weren't. I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical
> scientific theory and those who believe in them.

What, in particular, is oxymoron about "scientific theory"?

Methinks you are confusing theory with conjecture. In science, theory
does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch'. It has a very specific meaning that is
not the same as what a TV detective means when he says 'I have a
theory'.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Judah" > wrote:

> I know you weren't. I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical
> scientific theory and those who believe in them.

You apparently do not understand the meaning of "oxymoron."

....or science...

or "theory."

What do you understand?

--
Dan

"Dragged forward by cold science, which doesn’t care what we think or believe
or wish for, we are headed into some interesting times."
- John Derbyshire

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote:
>
>> I know you weren't. I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical
>> scientific theory and those who believe in them.
>
> You apparently do not understand the meaning of "oxymoron."
>
> ...or science...
>
> or "theory."
>

Or believe.


Bertie

[Judah]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-01-28, Judah > wrote:
>
> What, in particular, is oxymoron about "scientific theory"?
>
> Methinks you are confusing theory with conjecture. In science, theory
> does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch'. It has a very specific meaning that is
> not the same as what a TV detective means when he says 'I have a
> theory'.

The oxymoron is not "scientific theory". The oxymoron is the BELIEF in
scientific theory.

The joke is that people like yourself will happily believe in a scientific
theory based on something they read in one book, but refuse to believe in a
religious theory based on something they read in another.

The bigger joke is that people on either side of the argument tend to believe
that science and religion are mutually exclusive, when in reality they just
answer different questions to the same problem.

[Judah]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote:
>
>> I know you weren't. I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical
>> scientific theory and those who believe in them.
>
> You apparently do not understand the meaning of "oxymoron."
>
> ...or science...
>
> or "theory."
>
> What do you understand?

I understand that some people are so blinded by their own dogma, and are so
insecure in their position, that they would rather insult anyone who
disagrees with them than communicate intelligently about it.

I also understand that my sentence above did not end with the word "theory".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Dylan Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 2008-01-28, Judah > wrote:
>>
>> What, in particular, is oxymoron about "scientific theory"?
>>
>> Methinks you are confusing theory with conjecture. In science, theory
>> does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch'. It has a very specific meaning that
>> is not the same as what a TV detective means when he says 'I have a
>> theory'.
>
> The oxymoron is not "scientific theory". The oxymoron is the BELIEF in
> scientific theory.

It's not a belief.

>
> The joke is that people like yourself will happily believe in a
> scientific theory based on something they read in one book, but refuse
> to believe in a religious theory based on something they read in
> another.

That;s the difference. Sientific theory isn't a belief. It's a best
guess based on the best obtainable info. Nobody "believes" a scientific
theory, at least not in the same way that someone makes a leap of faith
to believe in a religion.
Scinece is an attempt to understand whereas religion is not.

>
> The bigger joke is that people on either side of the argument tend to
> believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive, when in
> reality they just answer different questions to the same problem.

Or so you believe.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Judah" > wrote:
>>
>>> I know you weren't. I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the
>>> typical scientific theory and those who believe in them.
>>
>> You apparently do not understand the meaning of "oxymoron."
>>
>> ...or science...
>>
>> or "theory."
>>
>> What do you understand?
>
> I understand that some people are so blinded by their own dogma, and
> are so insecure in their position, that they would rather insult
> anyone who disagrees with them than communicate intelligently about
> it.
>
> I also understand that my sentence above did not end with the word
> "theory"


Or so you believe.


Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Judah" wrote:
>>> I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical
>>> scientific theory and those who believe in them.

> I also understand that my sentence above did not end with the word "theory".

That is the only thing about your sentence that is understandable.

The rest of it makes no sense, except perhaps by using your private
definitions of some of the words.

Let's trim it down and see if you can paraphrase in standard English terms:

What does "oxymoron of the typical scientific theory" mean?


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Judah]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" wrote:
>>>> I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical
>>>> scientific theory and those who believe in them.
>
>> I also understand that my sentence above did not end with the word
>> "theory".
>
> That is the only thing about your sentence that is understandable.
>
> The rest of it makes no sense, except perhaps by using your private
> definitions of some of the words.
>
> Let's trim it down and see if you can paraphrase in standard English
> terms:
>
> What does "oxymoron of the typical scientific theory" mean?

That's like asking "What is 1 + "?

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Judah" wrote:

>>
>> What does "oxymoron of the typical scientific theory" mean?
>
> That's like asking "What is 1 + "?

So it's meaningless.

Thought so.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Judah]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13qd2lenuqlup02
@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Judah" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What does "oxymoron of the typical scientific theory" mean?
>>
>> That's like asking "What is 1 + "?
>
> So it's meaningless.
>
> Thought so.
>

Correct. If you don't complete the sentence, the result is your failure to
comprehend.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Judah" wrote:
>>>> What does "oxymoron of the typical scientific theory" mean?
>>>
>>> That's like asking "What is 1 + "?
>>
>> So it's meaningless.
>>
>> Thought so.
>>
>
> Correct. If you don't complete the sentence, the result is your failure to
> comprehend.

"I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical scientific theory and
those who believe in them."

In the interest of moving this along, I will guess at your fuzzy parsing and
peculiar definition of "oxymoron", and assume you are making a coy attempt to
equate scientific conviction with religious faith.

Is that about it?

Go ahead and use a dictionary and thesaurus if you need to; it's not cheating.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Stefan]

Dan Luke schrieb:
> In the interest of moving this along, I will guess at your fuzzy parsing and
> peculiar definition of "oxymoron", ...

Although English is not my native language, I did understand it without
difficulties, and the sentence fits perfectly the definition of an
oxymoron. The formulation was not very elegant, and it can even be
debated whether believing in a scientific theory is an oxymoron, but
that doesn't change the fact that the point was perfectly understandable.

Hmm, I see that oxymoron sounds pretty similar to moron.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dan Luke schrieb:
>> In the interest of moving this along, I will guess at your fuzzy parsing
>> and peculiar definition of "oxymoron", ...
>
> Although English is not my native language, I did understand it

Then perhaps you'd like to explain it.

> and the sentence fits perfectly the definition of an oxymoron.

No. An oxymoron is one thing composed of two contrary things that refer to
one another. The sentence contains two things that do not modify or refer
to each other.

Wikipedia: An oxymoron ... is a *figure of speech* that combines two
normally contradictory terms. Oxymoron is a loanword from Greek oxy
("sharp") and moros ("dull"). Thus the word oxymoron is itself an oxymoron.
Oxymorons are a proper subset of the expressions called contradictions in
terms. What distinguishes oxymorons from other paradoxes and contradictions
is that they are used intentionally, for rhetorical effect, and the
contradiction is only apparent, as the combination of terms provides a novel
expression of some concept, such as "cruel to be kind".

> Hmm, I see that oxymoron sounds pretty similar to moron.

Really?

Gosh!

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Dan Luke schrieb:
>>> In the interest of moving this along, I will guess at your fuzzy
>>> parsing and peculiar definition of "oxymoron", ...
>>
>> Although English is not my native language, I did understand it
>
> Then perhaps you'd like to explain it.
>
>> and the sentence fits perfectly the definition of an oxymoron.
>
> No. An oxymoron is one thing composed of two contrary things that
> refer to one another. The sentence contains two things that do not
> modify or refer to each other.
>
> Wikipedia: An oxymoron ... is a *figure of speech* that combines two
> normally contradictory terms. Oxymoron is a loanword from Greek oxy
> ("sharp") and moros ("dull"). Thus the word oxymoron is itself an
> oxymoron. Oxymorons are a proper subset of the expressions called
> contradictions in terms. What distinguishes oxymorons from other
> paradoxes and contradictions is that they are used intentionally, for
> rhetorical effect, and the contradiction is only apparent, as the
> combination of terms provides a novel expression of some concept, such
> as "cruel to be kind".
>
>> Hmm, I see that oxymoron sounds pretty similar to moron.
>
> Really?
>
> Gosh!
>

It obviously stirred a memory.


Bertie

[Stefan]

Dan Luke schrieb:

> Wikipedia: An oxymoron ...

Wikipedia, the definitive authoritative source. But thanks, I *do* know
what an oxymoron is: e.g. "those who believe in scientific theory" is one.

What I don't know however is whether you really don't understand or are
just playing some game. Either way, there's no point in trying to
explain the abovementioned oxymoron.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stefan > wrote in
:

> Dan Luke schrieb:
>
>> Wikipedia: An oxymoron ...
>
> Wikipedia, the definitive authoritative source. But thanks, I *do*
> know what an oxymoron is: e.g. "those who believe in scientific
> theory" is one.
>
> What I don't know however is whether you really don't understand or
> are just playing some game. Either way, there's no point in trying to
> explain the abovementioned oxymoron.



Let me try to expand your understaindg of the term with an example:


Cool Swiss.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Stefan wrote:
> Dan Luke schrieb:
>
>> Wikipedia: An oxymoron ...
>
> Wikipedia, the definitive authoritative source. But thanks, I *do* know
> what an oxymoron is: e.g. "those who believe in scientific theory" is one.
>

Do you believe in gravity? That's a Scientific Theory. There are many
here that seem to confusing the scientific meaning of the word with the
common usage.

[Stefan]

Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:

> Do you believe in gravity? That's a Scientific Theory. There are many
> here that seem to confusing the scientific meaning of the word with the
> common usage.

Sometimes it really would help to read the history of a debate and get
the context prior to respond.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:a7386$47a751aa$54497f39$8128
@news.hispeed.ch:

> Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:
>
>> Do you believe in gravity? That's a Scientific Theory. There are many
>> here that seem to confusing the scientific meaning of the word with the
>> common usage.
>
> Sometimes it really would help to read the history of a debate and get
> the context prior to respond.
>

Sometimes. Not when the debate was written by Lewis Carrol, though.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Stefan wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:
>
>> Do you believe in gravity? That's a Scientific Theory. There are many
>> here that seem to confusing the scientific meaning of the word with
>> the common usage.
>
> Sometimes it really would help to read the history of a debate and get
> the context prior to respond.

I have read this thread and to raise to the level where I would consider
it a debate would take a crane.

What it is, is a few people putting forth the idea that it requires a
leap of faith to believe a scientific theory that is equal to the leap
of faith required to believe in a religion. I personally think that is
an insult to both scientific theory and religion.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Stefan" wrote:

>> Wikipedia: An oxymoron ...
>
> Wikipedia, the definitive authoritative source. But thanks, I *do* know
> what an oxymoron is: e.g. "those who believe in scientific theory" is one.


You are welcome to produce one you consider more authoritative.


>
> What I don't know however is whether you really don't understand or are
> just playing some game.

I do understand.

The two components do not comprise an oxymoron. They do, however indicate a
pattern of misunderstanding on the part of the OP.

> Either way, there's no point in trying to explain the abovementioned
> oxymoron.

Mmm-hmm.

--
Dan

"You have a total of 0 fans and 0 friends."
-Webshots

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Stefan wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:
>>
>>> Do you believe in gravity? That's a Scientific Theory. There are many
>>> here that seem to confusing the scientific meaning of the word with
>>> the common usage.
>>
>> Sometimes it really would help to read the history of a debate and get
>> the context prior to respond.
>
> I have read this thread and to raise to the level where I would consider
> it a debate would take a crane.
>
> What it is, is a few people putting forth the idea that it requires a
> leap of faith to believe a scientific theory that is equal to the leap
> of faith required to believe in a religion. I personally think that is
> an insult to both scientific theory and religion.
>
It's an insult to the little letters that make up the words!

Bertie

[Judah]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13qejr8s4vbdn60
@news.supernews.com:

> Stefan wrote:
>> Dan Luke schrieb:
>>
>>> Wikipedia: An oxymoron ...
>>
>> Wikipedia, the definitive authoritative source. But thanks, I *do* know
>> what an oxymoron is: e.g. "those who believe in scientific theory" is one.
>>
>
> Do you believe in gravity? That's a Scientific Theory. There are many
> here that seem to confusing the scientific meaning of the word with the
> common usage.

Do you believe that there is a reason that two bodies attract one another? Or
is it simply enough to believe that they do?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
> news:13qejr8s4vbdn60 @news.supernews.com:
>
>> Stefan wrote:
>>> Dan Luke schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Wikipedia: An oxymoron ...
>>>
>>> Wikipedia, the definitive authoritative source. But thanks, I *do*
>>> know what an oxymoron is: e.g. "those who believe in scientific
>>> theory" is one.
>>>
>>
>> Do you believe in gravity? That's a Scientific Theory. There are many
>> here that seem to confusing the scientific meaning of the word with
>> the common usage.
>
> Do you believe that there is a reason that two bodies attract one
> another? Or is it simply enough to believe that they do?
>

Well, it has been said that if you trip and forget to fall you will fly...

Therefore gravity must be a belief.

Bertie

[Judah]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" wrote:
>>>>> What does "oxymoron of the typical scientific theory" mean?
>>>>
>>>> That's like asking "What is 1 + "?
>>>
>>> So it's meaningless.
>>>
>>> Thought so.
>>>
>>
>> Correct. If you don't complete the sentence, the result is your failure
>> to comprehend.
>
> "I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical scientific theory
> and those who believe in them."
>
> In the interest of moving this along, I will guess at your fuzzy
> parsing and peculiar definition of "oxymoron", and assume you are making
> a coy attempt to equate scientific conviction with religious faith.
>
> Is that about it?
>
> Go ahead and use a dictionary and thesaurus if you need to; it's not
> cheating.


Since you brought it up, I looked on dictionary.com :

con·vic·tion –noun 1. a fixed or firm belief.

faith -noun 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness
of a person, idea, or thing.


Perhaps you meant, "scientific faith and religious conviction."

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Judah" wrote:

>> In the interest of moving this along, I will guess at your fuzzy
>> parsing and peculiar definition of "oxymoron", and assume you are making
>> a coy attempt to equate scientific conviction with religious faith.
>>
>> Is that about it?
>>
>> Go ahead and use a dictionary and thesaurus if you need to; it's not
>> cheating.
>
>
> Since you brought it up, I looked on dictionary.com :
>
> con·vic·tion –noun 1. a fixed or firm belief.
>
> faith -noun 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness
> of a person, idea, or thing.
>
>
> Perhaps you meant, "scientific faith and religious conviction."

No. I am attempting to entice you into making a definitive statement
explaining what your point is.

Up to now, you've provided word salad and evasions.

It seems you realize you don't know what you're talking about WRT science and
belief. Looks like you're resorting to being coy so you won't be caught out.

But I could be wrong. Perhaps you really do have a cogent idea discuss.
Seems unlikely, but why don't you try again?

Take your time. I can wait.

--
Dan

"Don't make me nervous when I'm carryin' a baseball bat."
- Big Joe Turner

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Judah > wrote in
:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Judah" wrote:
>>>>>> What does "oxymoron of the typical scientific theory" mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's like asking "What is 1 + "?
>>>>
>>>> So it's meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> Thought so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct. If you don't complete the sentence, the result is your
>>> failure to comprehend.
>>
>> "I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical scientific
>> theory and those who believe in them."
>>
>> In the interest of moving this along, I will guess at your fuzzy
>> parsing and peculiar definition of "oxymoron", and assume you are
>> making a coy attempt to equate scientific conviction with religious
>> faith.
>>
>> Is that about it?
>>
>> Go ahead and use a dictionary and thesaurus if you need to; it's not
>> cheating.
>
>
> Since you brought it up, I looked on dictionary.com :
>
> con·vic·tion –noun 1. a fixed or firm belief.
>
> faith -noun 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or
> trustworthiness
> of a person, idea, or thing.
>
>
> Perhaps you meant, "scientific faith and religious conviction."


POerhaps he meant science and bull****.

Bertie
>
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-02-03, Judah > wrote:
> The oxymoron is not "scientific theory". The oxymoron is the BELIEF in
> scientific theory.
>
> The joke is that people like yourself will happily believe in a scientific
> theory based on something they read in one book, but refuse to believe in a
> religious theory based on something they read in another.

Well, you just sort of proved you really don't understand what the
scientific method is, or indeed what a scientific theory is, and you
also made a false assumption about me.

A hint. Scientific theories aren't something you believe in. In fact,
the scientific method spends most of its time trying not to "believe"
theories, but instead disprove them. A big part of a scientist's job is
to poke holes in theories.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Judah wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13qejr8s4vbdn60
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>> Stefan wrote:
>>> Dan Luke schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Wikipedia: An oxymoron ...
>>> Wikipedia, the definitive authoritative source. But thanks, I *do* know
>>> what an oxymoron is: e.g. "those who believe in scientific theory" is one.
>>>
>> Do you believe in gravity? That's a Scientific Theory. There are many
>> here that seem to confusing the scientific meaning of the word with the
>> common usage.
>
> Do you believe that there is a reason that two bodies attract one another? Or
> is it simply enough to believe that they do?

Yes I do believe there is a reason and that reason is explained by a
scientific theory.

[Judah]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> Well, you just sort of proved you really don't understand what the
> scientific method is, or indeed what a scientific theory is, and you
> also made a false assumption about me.
>
> A hint. Scientific theories aren't something you believe in. In fact,
> the scientific method spends most of its time trying not to "believe"
> theories, but instead disprove them. A big part of a scientist's job is
> to poke holes in theories.

We've spent way too much time arguing about semantics.

Science is based on empirical evidence. But most science is based on
studies that were performed by someone else, in some lab with very
specifically managed conditions that often cannot be duplicated by you or I
in our homes.

The results of an experiment might be documented in some journal or
textbook, but at the end of the day, because the typical layman cannot
really duplicate the environment, there is an element of faith that the
experiment and related controls were not corrupted by some unseen element.

As you yourself have said, in many cases scientific theories are disproven,
even after they have been "proven" using experiments with controls, etc.
This can happen for any number of reasons - bad assumptions, lack of
control of variables that were perceived to be irrelevant to the
experiment, or even bias on the part of the experimenter.

The bottom line is that while some science is certainly observable by the
layman and therefore perhaps indisputable, other science is founded in an
element of faith or trust in the people who have performed the experiments
and provided the results.

To religious people, there are empirical, observable situations that lend
themselves to a theory that the "natural order of things" is controlled by
something other than randomness. Some people call this "God". Personally,
I'm not sure that the visions evoked in most people by the word "God" are
accurate, but I do believe that it is likely that things like evolution,
gravity, childbirth, Shakespeare, etc. all happen as a result of something
other than randomness, even if the mechanisms can often be duplicated in a
lab.

Most people either believe that the world is governed by Science or God,
and take very adverse positions against anyone who might believe the two
can co-exist. But the bottom line is that ultimately, any time you put your
trust in something that you've been told, other than having observed it
personally, it requires a little bit of faith...

[Judah]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Yes I do believe there is a reason and that reason is explained by a
> scientific theory.

Exactly.

[Judah]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>> Perhaps you meant, "scientific faith and religious conviction."
>
> No. I am attempting to entice you into making a definitive statement
> explaining what your point is.
>
> Up to now, you've provided word salad and evasions.
>
> It seems you realize you don't know what you're talking about WRT
> science and belief. Looks like you're resorting to being coy so you
> won't be caught out.
>
> But I could be wrong. Perhaps you really do have a cogent idea discuss.
> Seems unlikely, but why don't you try again?
>
> Take your time. I can wait.

For your benefit, I posted a more detailed explanation of my opinion in
another post.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/f70a667960c4fe6f

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Most people either believe that the world is governed by Science or God,

I have no problem envisioning a scientific God.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Judah" wrote:
..
>
> The bottom line is that while some science is certainly observable by the
> layman and therefore perhaps indisputable, other science is founded in an
> element of faith or trust in the people who have performed the experiments
> and provided the results.

********. You haven't a clue.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Judah]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in news:13qjkojmqnmjp80
@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Judah" wrote:
> .
>>
>> The bottom line is that while some science is certainly observable by the
>> layman and therefore perhaps indisputable, other science is founded in an
>> element of faith or trust in the people who have performed the experiments
>> and provided the results.
>
> ********. You haven't a clue.
>

Believe what you will.

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 11:12*pm, Judah > wrote:
> The bottom line is that while some science is certainly observable by the
> layman and therefore perhaps indisputable, other science is founded in an
> element of faith or trust in the people who have performed the experiments
> and provided the results.

IMHO these are very good example of oxymoron statements ;-)

Hai Longworth

[jon]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:2ejqj.18262$9j6.324@attbi_s22:

>> Most people either believe that the world is governed by Science or
>> God,
>
> I have no problem envisioning a scientific God.

Bull****, you have a problem envisioning a god made out of a teacpot.



Bertiiiiii