Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Actually there are many why-questions (at least in science) that can be given a straight answer!

Exactly!

I fully second Ejnar's statement! There are indeed so many important why-questions for which science has given a straight answer! Just consider these few examples:

In the field of physics: Why will a climber fall if he misses his hold?

In the field of climate science: Why do increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere lead to increased average earth temperatures?

In the field of biology: Why have living organisms evolved from a common ancestor, and why will they continue to evolve?

However, one big unsolved question remains in the field of psychology: Why do some people continue to deny the evidence?

Well, perhaps "Doctor Phil" can answer the last one ???

Hey, WHY are you guys displaying humor? This is Summitpost, for crying out loud !!!

Here, I fixed it for you...

I was in school talking to one of my friends about climbing in the Gunks:

Me: "So we were around 300 feet up. My arm was too short so I had to dyno, or jump, to the next hold, but my hand slipped off and I fell."
Him: "Were you attached to anything?"

No, I happened to land on a trampoline.

When I'm sitting next to a trail, for example, taking a break by eating a sandwich.

Some party comes along, stops to enjoy the view, and someone asks, "So, eatin' a sandwich, are ya?"

I love the " What elevation we at " question for Alaska.

A friend and I were cycling along a lake in Glacier Nat. Park, on a pretty hilly road. When we got to the other end of the lake (about 20 miles) but still at the lakeshore, I asked him "how much higher do you think this side of the lake is than the other side ? " To which he answered " At least 500ft"

The worst part was, that no matter how many times I try to explain to him that it was the same elevation, he wouldnt listen !!!

I still make in fun of him to this day about it.

Bruno_Tibet wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Actually there are many why-questions (at least in science) that can be given a straight answer!

Exactly!

I fully second Ejnar's statement! There are indeed so many important why-questions for which science has given a straight answer! Just consider these few examples:

In the field of physics: Why will a climber fall if he misses his hold?

In the field of climate science: Why do increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere lead to increased average earth temperatures?

In the field of biology: Why have living organisms evolved from a common ancestor, and why will they continue to evolve?

However, one big unsolved question remains in the field of psychology: Why do some people continue to deny the evidence?

I am not denying any of the three, but for question two I wonder why generally people don't say 'greenhouse gases', they say 'CO2', which is neither the most common, nor the strongest greenhouse gas!

Now,WHY did we arrive to that subject again?

I always liked The Rolling Stones take on "gases:"

"I was born in a cross-fire hurricane,
And I howled at my ma in the driving rain;
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas!
But it's all right, I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash,
It's a Gas! Gas! Gas...!"

"Do we need oxygen to reach the top?", asked by two women in dress shoes and with handbags, on the trail to Charleston Peak (11918'). I guess the correct answer was "yes."

(OK, this was reported to me by a friend.)

Just this past week I got pulled over by a highway patrol officer in the black hills. I was going 63 in a 55 and going downhill. I thought it a bit ridicules, but understood when he asked: "Are you guys going climbing?" We only had a bumper sticker that said "Rock Climb" on it and all are packs, rope and protection laying around in the car.

It doesn't take a detective to figure out what we were up too.

MoapaPk wrote:"Do we need oxygen to reach the top?", asked by two women in dress shoes and with handbags, on the trail to Charleston Peak (11918'). I guess the correct answer was "yes."

(OK, this was reported to me by a friend.)

Aaaaaah... if the women were "breathtaking," they I guess almost anybody who witnessed
their beauty needed oxygen.

lcarreau wrote:
Aaaaaah... if the women were "breathtaking," they I guess almost anybody who witnessed
their beauty needed oxygen.

Worst joke of the day goes to lacarreau!

Hotoven wrote:

lcarreau wrote:
Aaaaaah... if the women were "breathtaking," they I guess almost anybody who witnessed
their beauty needed oxygen.

Worst joke of the day goes to lacarreau!

THANKS ... you mean I finally won something?

At least you didn't call me stupid..

lcarreau wrote:Hey, WHY are you guys displaying humor?

Because humour is another evidence of evolution:

Evolutionary explanation of humour [...] is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how and why any individual finds anything funny

source

lcarreau wrote:Well, perhaps "Doctor Phil" can answer the last one ???

Who is Doctor Phil? I checked, there's no SP member of that name.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

Bruno_Tibet wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Actually there are many why-questions (at least in science) that can be given a straight answer!

Exactly!

I fully second Ejnar's statement! There are indeed so many important why-questions for which science has given a straight answer! Just consider these few examples:

In the field of physics: Why will a climber fall if he misses his hold?

In the field of climate science: Why do increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere lead to increased average earth temperatures?

In the field of biology: Why have living organisms evolved from a common ancestor, and why will they continue to evolve?

However, one big unsolved question remains in the field of psychology: Why do some people continue to deny the evidence?

I am not denying any of the three, but for question two I wonder why generally people don't say 'greenhouse gases', they say 'CO2', which is neither the most common, nor the strongest greenhouse gas!

Haha, you're so funny! Thanks Ejnar!

Shall I rephrase your statement in a more simple way?
Why does always the only person always only mentioning CO2 always asks why others only always speak about CO2 (while they actually don't, of course)?

But I guess there is also an additional underlying question, as your latest post is probably again referring to water vapour as a greenhouse gas:
Why are some apparently well educated persons unable to understand the difference between a forcing and a feedback?

Cheers,
Bruno