HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:43:30 GMT

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>Before the Bible-thumpers respond, repeat their mantra after me (preferably
>with as much whining as possible):
>	But THEY weren't *REAL* Christians.

There's more than one mantra out there.  How about:

	But JOHN_-_WINSTON'S not a *REAL* Skeptic.

He posts on sci.skeptic, therefore his views must be interpreted as being
indicative of skeptics.  This doesn't sound narrow minded, does it?

>Good luck in getting an operational definition of Christianity, though. Face
>it, people like Bennet simply define Christianity as whatever they happen to
>approve of at the moment.  The definition changes from day to day, and
>definitely from Christian to Christian.  These jackasses could've given Reagan
>lessons in slipperiness.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick 

Curt


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:39:56 GMT


   For heavans sake Kalki, of course life is well adapted to the natural
laws of the universe in which it exists.  Life would use different physical
modalities in a different universe (if it managed to exist at all).  
Evolution is skilled at exploiting the features of the environment in which it
takes place (though sometimes it misses specific advantages); that life seems
well suited to earth and our universe is simply a prediction of the theory
of evolution.

   Also, your long post is stale.  This whole body of ideas has been run
right into the ground in the past (though perhaphs not in sci.skeptic).  Do
you get paid by the megabyte posted?  I don't see how your conclusion follows
either; it requires the onobserved interventionist God, a creture no more
real than the fractal green Quars [Kyew-ahrs] or the Easter Bunny.

   For those of you in sci.skeptic-talk.origins, Kalki hit #1 by volume on talk
origins a few weeks ago, quite a feat as the tedster was in full voice at the
time.  A friend informs me that Kalki's name translates as servant-of-the-god-
who-scourges-the-infidel.  He's pretty effective; after wading through his
megaposts I certianly feel scourged.  Final note: beware any Sanskrit
translations Kalki offers; he exaggerates.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Remember to chant:  {Ignore incovienient facts}^120
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy)
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:34:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.165647.1043@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> 
kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>
>Is there actually some guidleline that states that in order to be considered
>homeopathic, a substance must be diluted to a strength of x%? If so,
>what is x? Does anybody know?
>
>Arnica is prescribed by homeopathics as a homeopathic substance and is diluted
>to a solution of 8% (external form).
>
>It seems to me that the more important idea to focus on is the way in which
>a homeopathic substance theoretically remedies an ailment. If the substance
>irritates the body into defending itself, and thus indirectly attacking
>the ailment, the dilution strength should only be considered when insuring
>that the substance is weak enough not to cause the patient problems. It
>seems that dilution strengths would vary widely depending on the substance.
>

As previously posted by several people, most homeopathic remedies are 
generally diluted to the extent that it is highly unlikely that the 
dosage you are taking does not contain *even a single molecule* of
the substance that is supposedly effecting the cure.  This rules out
the hypothesis that _for these incredibly diluted remedies_ there is
any correlation between the properties of that substance and the 
ailment that it is supposed to cure.  This doesn't mean that they don't
work through other means (e.g. a placebo effect).

Now, with regard to remedies that are on the order of a few percent
strength, there *may* be an effect such as you are describing.  If you
want to call this homeopathic, that's fine, but you'll have to distin-
guish between the ~8% concentration remedies and the 0% ones in order
to have any argument at all.  

Yes, in other words, dilution strength will vary widely, but it will not
likely be lower than say, 0.001%.  Traditional homeopathic remedies
are twenty five orders of magnitude lower in concentration, so add
twenty five or so zeroes to the above number.  Now do you see  the
difference?

..don...

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Hypnosis and Repression (was Ritual Abuse Taskforce....)
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:07:29 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:38:54 GMT
>FROM:   Robert McGrath <mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu>
>
>In article <DLB.92Dec18143616@fanny.wash.inmet.com>, dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes in part:
>|>
>|> There is a fair amount of evidence that hypnotic memories (memories
>|> recovered with the aid of hypnosis) can indeed be influenced by the
>|> language and requests of the hypnotist.  I know of no evidence that
>|> this happens to a greater extent than with any memory elicited in
>|> conversation, in response to prompting.
>
>What is the basis for this last claim?
>
>As far as I recall, one of the key features of the "hypnotised"
>state is susceptability to suggestion.  There is PLENTY of evidence
>that people who are hypnotized respond to suggestion much more
>easily and compliantly than even the same people when not 
>hypnotized.   That's how you tell they are hypnotized.
>
>Perhaps I am mistaken in this recollection.
>
>-- 
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu

Role playing of trancelike states are as old as childhood.  Can you not 
remember playing dead?  We appear to need role models to successfully 
satisfy others' expectations of us; to make us predictable and thereby 
non-threatening (or predictably threatening).  Gestures, manners, 
etiquette, posture, eye-contact, and the mishmash of social skills that 
to date has eluded precise definition in even one culture, all contribute 
in the player continuously inventing what a particular "character" will 
do under such-and-such circumstances.  We could even construe a particular
set of role models as defining a cultural milieu.  

Part of the role which we define as a hypnotized subject we have (to 
my mind, at least) borrowed from the archetypical religious trance, and 
to play the role we give cultural/normative evidence of the trance-like 
state to tell those watching what to expect of us -- i.e., we act 
hypnotized.  Though I agree that much testimony for hypnosis exists, 
that evidence seems circular at best:  We are going to hypnotize you -- 
you know what that means, right? -- ok, here we go.  Are you doing it yet?
There.  See?  He's hypnotized.

  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C---->> Self-hypnosis?  Worse yet.
;;| >-  `.__),;;

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R)
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:44:51 GMT

wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:

>In article <1992Dec8.200023.28457@walter.bellcore.com> kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner) writes:
>#Lessee, someone has a headache.  Being hit over the head with a large rock
>#produces similar, if not the same, symptoms.  So, I crush the rock, and
>#pound on it until there isn't even any dust left.  I then take "that" and
>#drop it on the sufferer's head, thereby curing the headache.

>No, between poundings it should be diluted in alcohol, and the dilution 
>should be shaken. 

Do you mean that the rock dust or the head should be diluted and shaken...

-- 
Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
				 *Aristotle				      *
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: phs@cassiopee.cosmos (philippe schnoebelen 303v)
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Reply-To: phs@lifia.imag.fr (Philippe Schnoebelen)
Organization: Institut Imag, Grenoble, France
	<1992Dec8.200023.28457@walter.bellcore.com> <6657@tuegate.tue.nl>
	<1992Dec10.172102.6968@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
	<1992Dec13.181921.2935@rhrk.uni-kl.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:46:39 GMT


   In article <1992Dec10.172102.6968@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
   >It seems to me that the use of vaccines is very similar. You inject an
   >irritant similar to what you are vaccinating against. The body builds
   >up antibodies to that irritant, which allows it to fight off the
   >disease being protected against. The difference being that vaccines
   >are taken before the fact.

This is only a very superficial similarity. And the difference you mention
is very important.

If you are a scientist, you know that such similarities exist everywhere
and prove nothing (or rather, everything). If you don't look out, you'll
end up saying that it is not Pasteur (or whoever) who discovered vaccines,
but the guy who first said "One must fight fire with fire."

Another difference between homeopathy and vaccines is that vaccines teach
the body to build antibodies against germs etc., not against "diseases" and
vague "bad health" and "broken legs".  It is important to know how vaccines
work, so that we know when they work (and why). 

Homeopathy is nice as a theory to play with.  Indeed it gives you a great
research program (test any substance on subjects and note the effects) !
But it is very poor at explaining anything. Well, I guess "the body heals
itself" and "it finds back its equilibrium" will suffice as an explanation.
Note that the same explains how acupuncture works. So ACU. and HOMEO.  must
be the same. (NB: I believe they are. Really.)

Note that you don't need to know the difference between a liver and a heart
to understand homeopathy theory.  [You don't need to know that you HAVE a
liver.] Of course, you don't need to know what are germs and, indeed, they
were not known in Hanneman's time.

I would very much like to read a unified presentation of acupuncture,
homeopathy, etc. as pre-scientific medical theories, reasonable FOR THEIR
TIME, providing you with a research program and some hope (for the time) of
solving important health problems. Any suggestion ?
--
Philippe SCHNOEBELEN,  LIFIA,  46 Av Felix VIALLET,  38000 Grenoble,  FRANCE
						     email: phs@lifia.imag.fr
"Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about."
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:29:14 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Cc: minsky

In article <1gobp1INNik@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <V1XuVB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>=O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
>=processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
>=many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
>=for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
>=universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
>=moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
>=out of nothing.
>
>And of course, in so concluding, he commits a fallacy.  Were the laws of
>physics otherwise, he wouldn't be around to contemplate them.  There is no
>information about whether or not the universe was designed for human life to be
>found in the observations.  At best, one can conclude that it's not impossible
>that the universe was designed for human life.

Certainly, this universe would seem to permit lots of different kinds
of life.  But even if this one were uniquely suitable for humans --
for example, if there were abundant natural supplies of tuxedos and
other indispensible necessities, that would prove nothing at all.
Because if I had the job of making universes, I would adopt the
simplest of all strategies, namely, to set up an enumeration of all
possible sets of laws, and create a different universe for each of
them.  To be sure, almost all of those universes would be
uninhabitable by anything, but who cares.  

In other words, it seems to me that most religious thinkers have been
too small minded to grasp even elementary consequences of omnipotence
in the realm of infinite computations.  Clearly, this strategy
predicts that some of those universes will be extraordinarily well
suited to human life.  In some of  *those* universes, as Carl Lydick would
swiftly point out, the human inhabitants would have "irrefutable
evidence" for the existence of even the Christian god, because their
planet would be rich in elementary particles that recite verses from
the Bible!  And yet they'd be simply and totally wrong in their faith,
because countless such worlds would arise in that infinite enumeration
of possible worlds.  

You might note, by the way, that this argument shows that irrefyutable
evidence is inconclusive against the deadly combination of the
Anthropic Argument plus the recursive-generation-of-All-possible-worlds
hypothesis, which (so far as I can see) is the most economical of all
theories of origins. Now just think how flaky, by comparison, are all
those "merely compelling" arguments!

Cheers.

.
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: How to deal with net-crap (was Re: Goodbyes)
Date: 18 Dec 92 10:43:57 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <BzD4wB.Ds8@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>Several people have posted indicating they will not be reading
>this group any more.
>
>Why are these announcements posted?  

They are cries of exasperation.

However, more efficient ways of dealing with net crap are:
1.  send the poster an e-mail.  This will keep him busy, and 
    prevent him from polluting the net.  Formulate your e-mail
    so that it invites return e-mails.
2.  Put the subject in your KILL-file
3.  Do not read any of the e-mails that are answers to your action 1.
4.  Do not post any cute remarks or arguments.

Some subjects provoke endless debate in which the same points of view
are brought up again and again.  This in itself is not bad (I earn my
living telling students each year the same thing repeatedly and over and
over again), but when there are no facts but only points of view 
exchanged it's no use going over the same debate again. Such subjects are:
religion, political issues like abortion, various opinions related to
sexual practice or venereal diseases, questions like "what is science".
Unless trenching new arguments and indubitably new and reliable facts
are brought up, discussions on these subjects are mere space heating.
KILL them!

JWN


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Wwy is the sky blue? (was Re: Daytime Stars - Not Donahue or Oprah)
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:43:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.172424.12830@xilinx.com>, dif@xilinx.com (Diana Foss) writes:
> 
> 
> The sky is blue because of scattered light. It was right the first time.
> Air molecues are approximately the same size as the wavelength of blue
> light (~ 4000 Angstroms) so blue light is scattered more strongly than
> red. Incidentally, this is why the setting and rising Sun looks red. At low
> angles, sunlight goes through lots more atmosphere, so much more blue light
> gets subtracted from the beam. 

The geometry described above is correct but the physics isn't.  Molecules are
around 1 or 2 A in size, not 4000.  The effect is called Rayleigh scattering,
due to particles much _smaller_ than the wavelength.  For more discussion see
a recent thread in SCI.PHYSICS.

Ben
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 15 Dec 1992 22:30:46 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec14.165647.1043@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>It seems to me that the more important idea to focus on is the way in which
>a homeopathic substance theoretically remedies an ailment. If the substance
>irritates the body into defending itself, and thus indirectly attacking
>the ailment, the dilution strength should only be considered when insuring
>that the substance is weak enough not to cause the patient problems. It
>seems that dilution strengths would vary widely depending on the substance.

Er, Dave?  If the patient is ALREADY ill, don't you think that the illness
itself would have a better chance of "irritat[ing] the body into defending
itself" than perhaps a few molecules known to cause "similar" symptoms if
ingested in massive doses?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.med
From: pepke@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Subject: Re: Hearing aids
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 16:38:32 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Dec16125546@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry 
Roston) writes:
> So the question is this: Who's telling the truth?  Do Miracle Ear
> hearing aids work as advertised?  Is the second practitioner correct,
> or is he "jealous" of a technology not available to him?  Any
> information, including personal anecdotes, are welcomed.

The second practitioner is incorrect.  The first practitioner may or may 
not be correct.  There do exist equalizing hearing aids.  I own one.  It's 
a behind-the-ear jobbie about 15 years old that was owned by my 
grandmother.  No integrated circuits, so the circuit is fairly easy to 
trace if you're nearsighted.  The equalization control is fairly crude, 
consisting of fixed filters that are selected when the hearing aid is 
being built.  It's obviously going to be a rough approximation of any 
particular hearing pattern.

Whether Miracle Ear does this or not, I cannot say.  However, the 
assertion that there are no hearing aids on the market with EQ is false.

Eric Pepke                                    INTERNET: pepke@scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET:   pepke@fsu
Florida State University                      SPAN:     scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052                    BITNET:   pepke@fsu

Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Up is up, down is up!
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:57:50 GMT

In article <2933003930.0.p00168@psilink.com>, "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
|> >DATE:   Tue, 8 Dec 1992 23:34:31 GMT
|> >FROM:   Robert McGrath <mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu>
|> >
|> >|> >=BUT, when we'd look through our rear-window, the road behind ALSO appeared 
|> >|> >=to be going "uphill".
|> >|> >=
|> >|> >=What causes this phenomenon of sensory misinterpretation of
|> >|> >=direction?
|> >|> > 
|> >
|> [...]
|> >You know something I don't.  There are quite a few visual illusions of
|> >slope, which this one may be an example of.  You are probably correct that 
|> >such effects are said to diminish with familiarity with the slopes.
|> 
|> [...]
|> >That is, perception gets more accurate as you get used to the
|> >situation.  If this were so, then the "regulars" will not experience
|> >the illusion as much as novices.
|> >
|> >I think this one may be related to the famous illusion seen from 
|> >mountain tops:  the earth seems to curve upward and distant lakes 
|> >and oceans appear to be higher than where you are standing.   This 
|> >one can be seen in still photos!  Wierd!
|> >
|> >-- 
|> >  Robert E. McGrath
|> 
|> Just a side note:  Having played golf for 38 years, I can vouch for 
|> similar effects reading putts on hilly courses -- the damn things break 
|> UPHILL!!  Sounds like the same sort of thing in miniature.
|> 
|> -jim
|> 

As long as the topic is sort of alive, I will take the opportunity
to recommend the book  "Behavior and Perception in Strange Environment",
by Helen E.(?) Ross, published in US and UK in 1973, 1974.  (It
many be call "Behaviour... in UK editions--I don't know.)  This
book has an excellent section on visual illusions "outdoors", (mentioning
practical application of the principal to golf courses) and the lack 
of theorectical understanding of them.  Cool plates and diagrams.  
It also has some interesting stuff on auditory illusions underwater, 
tactile illusions (why does cold water feel different from warm water
when you are wearing rubber gloves?), "perception of danger", and a 
wonderfully unusual chapter on "scientific expeditions".  

This book is what "science" should always be like!

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21467 sci.med:22737
From: gcouger@olesun.okstate.edu (Gordon Couger)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.med
Subject: Re: Hearing aids
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:18:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: osuunx.1992Dec17.051858.11727
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater

In article <GERRY.92Dec16125546@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>Here's the story: My SO is hard of hearing and has been for most of
>
>They both agree on her problem: She has nerve damage that makes it
>difficult for her to hear high frequency sounds.  This is a very
>common pattern for hearing loss.  The damage is nerver damage only,
>ther appears to be no conductive loss.
>
>This is where they disagree: The Miracle ear guy told her that his
>product can selectively amplify different frequencies.  That is, in
>her case, the low frequencies would not be altered, but the high
>frequencies would be amplified.  This would help compensate for her
>problem.  He "rigged" up his testing machine to simulate how the aids
>would work and my SO reported that the results were amazing.  
>
>The second doctor told her that in her case, she needed a hearing aid,
>such as the one described above, but that they don't exist!  He said
>that the only type on the market were straight amplifiers, and in her
>case, they'd be useless.  Now, as an engineer, I know that the
>technology for a selectively amplified hearing aid is not difficult.  
>
>So the question is this: Who's telling the truth?  Do Miracle Ear
>hearing aids work as advertised?  Is the second practitioner correct,
>or is he "jealous" of a technology not available to him?  Any
>information, including personal anecdotes, are welcomed.
>
My father wears the Miracle ear type that can be be adjusted to
hipass I am sure and band pass I think. He bought his for around 
$300.00. If you are intereseted you can call him at 512-758-7055
or  if he is not there try 405 335-2855.
His name is Gordon Couger, Sr.
Good luck
Gordon
Gordon Couger
AB5Dg   Agriculture Engineering Oklahoma State University
gcouger@olesun.agen.okstate.edu 405-744-6514 day 744-2794 evenings   
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.med