HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:17:50 GMT

In article <59981@mimsy.umd.edu>, biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.011511.1322@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> 
> >Paradoxes like: "This statement is false"
> 
> >...
> 
> >Could it be that in a higher form of logic these problems need not arise?
> 
> In formal, first order logic, you can't express, "This statement is false."
> However, Godel showed that you could produce a proposition which 
> acheived somewhat the same effect, such that the proposition could 
> have neither the valuation "true" nor the valuation "false." 

There are also electromechanical (buzzers and bells) and electronic
(astable multivibrators) ways doing pretty much the same thing.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the icr in p
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:22:13 GMT

In article <schumach.715116380@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com
(Richard A. Schumacher) spake thusly:
 
> I don't have any hope of converting the faithful, and I don't think
> it matters whether their mindset gets reinforced by seeing enemies
> at their gates. The ICR Museum is a PR ploy which must be countered,
> so that curious and uncomitted people are shown that the ICR's agenda
> is religious and not scientific. Now if it turns out that the vast
> majority of their visitors are the faithful, then there would be
> little point in a skeptical presence nearby.
 
Clearly the display is pitched to the core faithful (biblical 
literalists) as the primary intended audience, and that is ONE of the
problems with the picketing approach.  If we park all the expressions
of moral outrage for a moment, a number of other problems become 
apparent:
 
(1) You would (I hope) try to stress strongly that you are not seeking
to supress an unconventional point of view, but merely to point out that 
it is bogus and two-faced (since vastly different displays are made to
other audiences).  However, I'd be astonished if creationist rhetoric 
about your picketing mentioned this fact.  More likely, as someone else
suggested, you'd become Exhibit A in allegations of creationist 
martyrdom.
 
(2) The only place your protest would become news would be in a 
15-second spot in local TV "I-witless" (excuse me,  "eyewitness") news
programmes and the "local colour" sections of San Diego papers.  This
would be played as a human-interest story of crank A confronts crank B,
with sound bites from both sides carefully balanced, and ignoring the
substance of your criticisms.
 
(3) The museum is not where ICR does damage to public education, but
rather at local school-board meetings and state commissions.  That is
precisely where articles like Steve Linke's can be used to devastating
effect, while picketing in Santee, California helps not at all.  With
some luck, Steve's article has gone into a number of capture buffers
and archives, to be quoted from as needed.
 
Best Regards,
Rick Moen      (Speaking for himself alone.)
Best reached at Rick_Moen@blyth.com

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:17:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.160903.18687@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.065402.19240@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>[...]
>> 
>>>You claim people are being rude to you by not being logical and by being
>>>obsfurscating. I (and most of society) do not regard that as being rude,
>>>frustrating maybe, but not rude. We see politicians behaving like that all
>>>the time :-) We don't say they are rude, we say they are dishonest.
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Most people participating in sci.skeptic consider that sort of obfuscating to
>> be rude in the extreme, as I'd've thought you'd've learned by now.

>Giv'em  hell, Carl.  Not that there is any chance that he will learn anything
>from it.

Yes, and was that a tacit admission of being dishonest I saw in Derek's
post?
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14848 alt.culture.usenet:689
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:31:14 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Aug23.101121@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>   You seem to think I'm engaged in attempting to censor these idiots. 

No, I didn't think you wanted to censor them.  I was, however, explaining that
the same _reasons_ apply to why you might not want to censor them and why you
might not want to insult them: what's permissible--whether permitted by
law or permitted by social agreement--always works both ways.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15605 alt.culture.usenet:756
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Interpreting Silence (Re: Derek Tops Dan!)
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:45:57 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <btd.715231217@pv7413.vincent.iastate.edu> btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>admit it.  Otherwise, I interpret silence as not having an answer,  as well as
>not having the courage to admit it.


There are many possibilities why someone who is "attacked" on the net does not
answer (other than not having courage).

I personally do not always answer. I can't speak for everyone, but here are some
of my reasons, that have actually happened in the past (just to enlighten
everyone) as to why I remained silent:


1) I was too busy

2) I went away on holiday

3) The answer was so obvious, I didn't want to reply and so appear patronizing

4) The opponent used bad language (not replying was thus a form of political
   refusal to not participate in degenerate conversations). [Silence is
   sometimes a much more powerful form of "control" than active speech.
   It takes a bit of courage to do though.]

5) Due to problems on my node, the posts didn't get here for me to see & reply

6) Someone took my joke seriously, so by not replying, the joke's on him.

7) The opponent went off at a tangent. To stay on track it is sometimes better
   not to reply and save bandwidth.

8) The opponent nit picked about something not central to my argument.
   Saving bandwidth is better than replying.

9) I ran out of energy arguing with someone. By keeping silent, someone else
   (on my side) on the net then steps in and continues defending the case for
   me.

10) The question was more or less answered in a different post, so bandwidth
     was saved by avoiding repetition.

11) Some guy enters the conversation half way through a thread, and goes
    into an unecessary tyrade (if only he back tracked and read the beginning of
    the thread, sigh). I am silent because I can't be bothered to educate him.

12) I got bored with the thread.



Can anyone add to the list with their own experiences?
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pseudoskepticism (was CFD: New Newsgroup)
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:38:28 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD


	As a confirmed (and probably incurable) pseudoskeptic,
I have to admit that Eric has hit the nail on the head.
It is about time all us pseudoskeptics came out of the
closet and showed ourselves for what we really are.

	Bill R.

-- 
Bill R.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.philosphy.misc
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 14:20:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

As I see it, we can either use binary logic or not. :-)
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 31 Aug 1992 09:22 MST  
 <27AUG199210063281@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> <1992Aug31.144441.9547@lonex.rl.af.mil>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Aug31.144441.9547@lonex.rl.af.mil>, jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes...
>In article <27AUG199210063281@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>It's been done, books and articles have been written on it.  Jan
>>Lukasiewicz was the first to construct a three-valued logic, I
>>believe (true, false, indeterminate).  Now there's also fuzzy
>>logic, which has an infinite number of truth values (real numbers
>>from 0 to 1).
> 
>An infinity of integer values is the same.  Logic base googleplex? 8^)
>Of course, this can always be reduced to binary, and we're right back
>where we started. 8^(. 

The same what?  The cardinality of the natural numbers is not the same
as the cardinality of the reals (between any two real numbers is another
real).  The number of values there are is distinct from the base they're
expressed in.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:24:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.184008.13006@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <3630@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>>>>>lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>This whole thread
>>>>>really centers around a metaphysical issue:  Are your
>>>>>senses/experiences a source of truth?
>>
>>What is your definition of "truth"?
		.
		.
		.
>>What is your definition of "truth"?

>Mike,
>  has anyone ever told you that you have a tendency to repeat yourself?

Drew:  Has anybody ever told you that you have a tendency to duck critical
questions?

>As many will agree here, _my_ definition of truth has bo bearing on
>anyone else.

As anybody who's following the thread will tell you, when you pose a question
like "Are your senses/experiences a source of truth," you need to define your
terms, especially given your rather bizarre use of the English language.  What
do you mean by "truth" in that question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:19:13 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <92243.174004BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, <BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes...
> 
>  o  Biblical prohibitions of sodomy were effectively a public health
>     code that blocked the transmission of disease.

What diseases which were around in Biblical times were transmitted by sodomy
more than by more conventional intercourse?  This sounds like so much 
pop sociology to me.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15342 talk.origins:10328
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:50:47 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug26.125249.15328@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.151922.5348@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:

>>help me to understand and choose what is right.  I also ponder and pray
>>about other (non-scriptural) issues to understand how this all applies
>>to the rest of my life.
>
>What is your interpretation of Job 12:7-8?  How have you applied it 
>personally?

My interpretation?  It seems to say fairly clearly (either literaly or
figuratively) that all of the world, both living and non-living is a
testimony to God's creation.

How do I apply it to my life?  I am repeatedly overwhelmed by the
wonders which God has put in the world to be appreciated and enjoyed.

What is your interpretation?

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Psychotherapy Cults
Keywords: cult indignation psycho
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:51:19 GMT
Organization: RL

In article <1992Aug24.174920.26066@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.081252.22921@ericsson.se>, gunnar@beppe.ericsson.se (Gunnar Forsgren) writes:
>> Can somebody tell what 'iatrogenic' means ?
>
>"Caused by treatment," e.g. a hospital report that "the patient was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, caused by the "doctor." The stem for such words as psychiatry
(soul doctor), pediatry (child) , podiatry (foot), and geriatry (old folks)
is '`iatros.' 

-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15797 alt.culture.usenet:773
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Help! I'm bein' opressed (was: Derek tops Dan)
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:35:28 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Sep1.104933@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.122910.10513@actrix.gen.nz>,
>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>> In article <1992Sep1.004557.26097@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>                          [Derek tops Dan thread]
>>
>>
>> I'd like to point out that in the UK, NZ and Australia, to "top" someone
>means
>> you killed them.
>>
>> If you "top" yourself.....you commit suicide.
>>
>> Thought you might like to know......:-)
>>
>> Steve
>>
>   Jesus Q. Budda!  I have to watch out for Aussie assasians now?  Yikes.
>I'll warn everyone with about sixty feet of me, since Derek is picking the
>assasians.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey, keep JFK-speak  out of sci.skeptic :-)

>
>   In order to help prevent needless bloodshed: I am 5' 10", weigh 285 pounds,
>and can be found alone as about 8:00am (CST) on my (black, Schwinn) bike.  |I
>wear a blue bike helmet and a blue backpack.  Try Tripp street, it has the
>fewest residences of any street on my route, and some of them are nonflammable
>brick.
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: panspermia
Date: 3 Sep 1992 14:59:03 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bose.phys.ksu.edu

In article <95281@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>Yep, panspermia (which hardly anybody takes seriously, but never seems
>to go away) really just begs the question. If life wasn't formed on
>earth, then we'd have to find out where, how and when it formed
>somewhere else. 

About the best that can be said for panspermia is that it allows one to 
remove the constraints on abiogenesis imposed by conditions on the early
Earth.  Need a reducing atmosphere?  Just posit one on the "homeworld."

--
Justin M. Sanders    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
Dept. of Physics        --last words of Gen. John Sedgwick
Kansas State Univ.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15010 sci.physics:13555 alt.folklore.science:3145
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Organization: RL
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 12:53:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.202620.28464@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <3671@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.025231.3103@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>
>>>The only effective means in the past has been vacines. 
>>
>>"Isolation" is the only currently effective means.
>>
>
>Bzzzzt.
>
>2) Locking people up who are not a hazard is unethical. Unlike TB a
                                                               ^^^^
>   person who is HIV+ can easily avoid passing the virus onto anyone
>   else.
>
Unlucky example.  Something like half of all AIDS patients have TB.
(Just a comment.  I have no position on this issue.)
-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15298 talk.origins:10297
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:27:41 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)

In article <1992Aug27.172808.12707@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson (Drew Lawson) writes:
>Note that all science tends to proceed from the assumption to ignore
>God in the process.  The reason that I feel this is inappropriate in
>this case (personally I feel it is wrong in all cases == opinion)

Is your opinion anything other than talk and blather?  Can you point to
explicit examples where God was directly relevant to the advancement of
the scientific process?  Can you identify a field of research where
theological training is necessary to understand the subject matter?

>								   is
>that this is a question of the origin of Man.  I do not feel that I am
>the result of random permutations of slime.

So what?  Your feelings have zero relevance to evolution.

>>   It is sloppy logic but IT'S A CREATIONIST STRAW MAN NOT A CLAIM MADE BY
>>EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.  

>I did not mean that the theory of evolution concludes this, but that those
>posting on the topic seem to conclude this.

This "seems" is an exaggeration to the point of a lie.  There are certainly
some who conclude thus--certainly nothing close to all posters.  But mean-
while, you've been taking a broad swipe against _all_ of evolution.  What
people conclude from it in the philosophical/social/theological realm will
always be completely meaningless to the scientific question.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:34:27 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug20.171831.346@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

[much deleted]

>There is another point I've been meaning to bring up on this thread.
>The anti-faith side of this debate questions why the evidence points to
>long times, evolution, etc.  Perhaps the "evidence" is not pointing.
>As an example, let me bring up the old "canals" on Mars topic.  They
>were clear evidence that there was an advanced civilization on Mars.
>More recent views is that they just happen to be there and aren't
>evidence of anything.  They just appeared to be canals.

  Drew, there are no Martian canals.  Never were.  They were a combination
of bad telescopy and wishful thinking.  There are no features on Mars
that resemble the "canali" of Mars.  Furthermore, even when some people
did accept their existence, no reputable scientist thought of them as
evidence of an advanced civilization on Mars.  Not that it was ruled out:
the overwhelming majority of scientists simply said: "There's not enough
evidence to prove *anything*."

  And we aren't precisely "anti-faith".  We just oppose the use of faith
*in*science*!

>Ask all the questions you want, but don't be so arrogant to think that
>God must run the universe on your terms.

>Perhaps I have an easier time with this because I am a programmer.  I
>can think of variables and structures as real while I know that they
>are just convenient concepts.  I look at evolution the same way.

[sig deleted]

  Drew, I'm a biology grad student *and* a programmer.  Let me point out
that scientists are just as capable of abstract thought as you are.  If 
you read back messages on this topic, you'll find that various 
"pro-reason" posters (by analogy to your term "anti-faith") have
said over and over that a scientific theory is just our best guess
about how the physical universe behaves.  In other words, "just convenient
concepts".  Furthermore, about half of the physicists I know think of
such basic physics tools as the quantum as "just convenient concepts,
without physical reality".  We're really quite capable of thinking, 
you know.

  As Stephen Gould has so trenchantly pointed out, "Evolution is a 
theory.  It is also a fact."  That is, the "Theory of Evolution" 
(more correctly, any given theory of evolution) is an attempt by 
scholars to explain the fact of evolution.  Fact, sir, as certain
as the existence of Siberia is a fact.  We have excellent records
of evolution, we have seen it occur in modern times, and there's
no *rational* way to dispute the matter.
-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain