info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
More Anecdote Equals More Anecdote
64 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Mar 11, 2016, 5:12:08 PM3/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
RTB:
Jim, Glider pilots know the difference between thermals convecting over sunlit dry ground (but not over deep water) and updraughts caused by escarpment edges etc. From those observations, we build up our knowledge.
JM:
There are no mountains over the oceans, which are essential to the consistent, upmoving air necessary for glider pilots. And updrafts at sea are commonly observed, as in storms. Observation is one leg of scientific process. Obviously, glider pilots have no basis to identify "convection." They just assume it. Like yours, my hypothesis predicts updrafts will increase on warm days, especially afternoons. So the observation doesn't distinguish between our competing hypotheses.
Surely, you are not suggesting mountains cause jet streams. So, lateral winds, jet streams, storms are all evidence the movement of air in the atmosphere is not explicable solely with reference to convection. These are the issues you sidestep so effortlessly, as do all meteorologists. Jet streams can explain lateral winds. And you have no basis for eliminating jet streams as cause of storms, both at sea and on land. Convection is just a label put on storms-more anecdote. Tell us how convection explains jet streams. Even using anecdote you won't touch that explanation with a ten foot pole. Will you, Roger?
Also, like that of meteorology, my hypothesis predicts moisture as a factor in the updrafts (a big part of which involves the fact that warmer air has a higher capacity to absorb moisture). And my hypothesis is complimentary to and complimented by the existence of jet streams. Yours can only dismiss/ignore them. (Pity that.)
With my hypothesis the energy originates from above. In yours the energy comes from below. It is very hard to decisively detect the origins of the energy, especially when it comes from above. (And it is even harder to control the creative imaginations of the people that wish to believe it comes from below.) This makes it difficult to distinguish between the competing hypotheses. However, there are other criteria we can employ to distinguish between whether the energy comes from above or below (and, thereby, distinguish between our competing hypotheses). Such an approach (which I will not present here) would forego your over-reliance on the anecdotal observations of glider jockeys. And that's a good thing, doncha think? Shirley, you recognize the probitive value of such and why we would expect those that have formed emotional attachments to their imagined scenarios to feel threatened by this kind of empiricism--possibly including yourself.
People tend to be convinced by anecdote, as you are doing here. And they think, more anecdote equals knowledge. Actually, more anecdote just equals more anecdote.
Jim, Glider pilots know the difference between thermals convecting over sunlit dry ground (but not over deep water) and updraughts caused by escarpment edges etc. From those observations, we build up our knowledge.
JM:
There are no mountains over the oceans, which are essential to the consistent, upmoving air necessary for glider pilots. And updrafts at sea are commonly observed, as in storms. Observation is one leg of scientific process. Obviously, glider pilots have no basis to identify "convection." They just assume it. Like yours, my hypothesis predicts updrafts will increase on warm days, especially afternoons. So the observation doesn't distinguish between our competing hypotheses.
Surely, you are not suggesting mountains cause jet streams. So, lateral winds, jet streams, storms are all evidence the movement of air in the atmosphere is not explicable solely with reference to convection. These are the issues you sidestep so effortlessly, as do all meteorologists. Jet streams can explain lateral winds. And you have no basis for eliminating jet streams as cause of storms, both at sea and on land. Convection is just a label put on storms-more anecdote. Tell us how convection explains jet streams. Even using anecdote you won't touch that explanation with a ten foot pole. Will you, Roger?
Also, like that of meteorology, my hypothesis predicts moisture as a factor in the updrafts (a big part of which involves the fact that warmer air has a higher capacity to absorb moisture). And my hypothesis is complimentary to and complimented by the existence of jet streams. Yours can only dismiss/ignore them. (Pity that.)
With my hypothesis the energy originates from above. In yours the energy comes from below. It is very hard to decisively detect the origins of the energy, especially when it comes from above. (And it is even harder to control the creative imaginations of the people that wish to believe it comes from below.) This makes it difficult to distinguish between the competing hypotheses. However, there are other criteria we can employ to distinguish between whether the energy comes from above or below (and, thereby, distinguish between our competing hypotheses). Such an approach (which I will not present here) would forego your over-reliance on the anecdotal observations of glider jockeys. And that's a good thing, doncha think? Shirley, you recognize the probitive value of such and why we would expect those that have formed emotional attachments to their imagined scenarios to feel threatened by this kind of empiricism--possibly including yourself.
People tend to be convinced by anecdote, as you are doing here. And they think, more anecdote equals knowledge. Actually, more anecdote just equals more anecdote.
James McGinn
Mar 17, 2016, 2:26:20 AM3/17/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
James McGinn
Mar 24, 2016, 6:25:37 AM3/24/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Apr 16, 2016, 10:19:19 PM4/16/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
May 15, 2016, 7:27:55 PM5/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Jul 30, 2016, 6:06:22 PM7/30/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Aug 7, 2016, 8:33:55 PM8/7/16
to
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Sep 19, 2016, 2:21:46 PM9/19/16
to
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
noTthaTguY
Sep 22, 2016, 4:19:27 PM9/22/16
to
if you are not anectodtally,
I don't know the meaning of anecdotsism;
one has to include a)
the fusion within rrth, and b)
teh fission within rrth
I don't know the meaning of anecdotsism;
one has to include a)
the fusion within rrth, and b)
teh fission within rrth
noTthaTguY
Sep 24, 2016, 7:16:20 PM9/24/16
to
evidence for fusion is the ratio of He3 to He4,
over the midocean rifts
over the midocean rifts
James McGinn
Nov 5, 2016, 3:04:54 PM11/5/16
to
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Mar 23, 2017, 11:36:53 AM3/23/17
to
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Apr 8, 2017, 3:44:16 PM4/8/17
to
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
May 19, 2017, 3:02:29 PM5/19/17
to
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Jun 19, 2017, 1:30:04 AM6/19/17
to
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
0 new messages