Whoever affirms Jesus» thought accepts
also the
paradox that an event which from the observer's viewpoint must be regarded as a natural occurrence, as a part
of the world process determined by law, is in reality
something different, that is, a direct act
of God.
As I wrote earlier this year, «Because NAEP takes a representative sample, it's
also vulnerable to
something called Simpson's
Paradox, a mathematical
paradox in which the composition
of a group can create a misleading overall trend.
Actually, there is some interesting work being done by Matt Huber
of Purdue, following up on some earlier ideas
of Emanuel's, suggesting that the role
of TCs in transporting heat from equator towards the poles may be more significant than previously thought — it
also allows for some interesting, though admittedly somewhat exotic, mechanisms for explaining the «cool tropics
paradox» and «equable climate problem»
of the early Paleogene and Cretaceous periods, i.e. the problem
of how to make the higher latitudes warm without warming the tropics much,
something that appears to have happened during some past warm epochs in Earth's history.
That
paradox lies at the heart
of the issue, and it's
also what defines emotional infidelity as
something not exactly the same as, but at least socially equivalent to, sexual infidelity.