HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics
Date: 8 Oct 1992 06:02:27 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <Bvqv3A.658@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
=|> >The nagging question still remains: How does the trainee sceptic know when
=|> >the threshold of all knowledge has been reached?
=|> 
=|> Show one skeptic anywhere that claims to have all knowledge!  
=
=An extreme example used simply to illustrate a point.

No, a strawman argument that you spent the next 100 or so lines attacking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17800 alt.binaries.pictures.d:4794 talk.origins:12891 rec.arts.comics.strips:2792
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.binaries.pictures.d,talk.origins,rec.arts.comics.strips
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:55:12 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct8.153721.14742@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> Could someone clever please explain the creationism-explained
|> cartoon. Are strings, torches and batteries, dogs and chickens
|> meant to equal the earth or what??

Mr Tun, when you have it figured out, you won't forget 
that you have promised us an explanation of the fossil 
record based on a Flood model.

I am awaiting it with particular interest, since in the
past both Mr Bales and Mr Roy have tried to explain it 
to me, and I didn't quite get it either time.

jon.
From: adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Keywords: crucifixion
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:05:28 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Oct10.230735.13888@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>Now, if these men had been merely tied to a cross, I fail to see why
>two of the three would die after being taken down (or why they would
>even need more than superficial care from a physician). Actually, I am
>wondering if we have any *credible* evidence that some victims were
>simply tied to crosses. I suspect that all of them were nailed.
>
	(As I understand it...)  The Roman method of crucifixion involved
tying people to a cross; the arms strapped to the horizontal bar, the ankles
strapped to the upright (no platform to support the feet).  The weight of
the body makes breathing extremely difficult.  Death is caused by suffocation
plus exhaustion/exposure.  Victims usually took more than 24 hours to die.
	The practice of  using nails and breaking legs is to HASTEN death,
NOT to increase punishment; ditto spearing the body to increase bleeding.
Crucifixion is supposedly a very agonising death.  Anything which hastened
death was regarded as merciful, despite the fact that it might seem to be
extra punishment.
	It would have been necessary to ensure that jesus died quickly as
the next day was a Jewish holy day, hence the nails etc.
	No I don't have a reference to hand, but the Romans crucified
thousands of people; surely, somewhere, there is a clear description.

		Adam
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Skepticism (Was Re: Faith and sceptics.)
Keywords: Popper, pessimism, progress
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.040731.20207@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

---[]---
 
>Also when a new claim is somewhat offbeat, the skeptic's tactic of saying
>"the onus is on you to prove it's true," is not Popperian.
>Because Popper only proves things false. The claimant obviously can't
>prove his claim is false, as he's the one who is claiming it to be true.
>So the philosphical onus is on the Skeptic to prove it false. (I'm
>assuming that scientific skeptics subscribe to Popperian objectivity).

Yeah, since you have claimed that you can turn lead to gold or that you
can levitate objects, or that you can see auras, there is -no- way you
can prove your claim. This is bogus. If you have something that
actually works (not fraud or trickery), then it will be easy to
demonstrate, or at least demonstratable. If all you have is an outlandish 
'theory' which you could not even potentially prove, then why should anyone 
care?

I use "you" in a general sense here, I am not responding to the poster
directly.
 
>However, out of economy, it is impossible for skeptics to bear this onus
>in every case. 

And uneccessary in any case.

>                    The skeptic is forced to `close his mind' and ignore
>claims that he intuitively feels are wacky. There is nothing wrong with
>having a partially closed mind, out of economy.  We are only human.
>We are forced to be selective, by our finiteness and limited resources.

I can recall noone 'debunking' the Wright brothers first flight. Many
said that it could not be done, but once it had been done...
 
>Where it goes wrong, is when some skeptics do not have the self-esteem
>to simply admit that they are closing their minds out of economy and putting
>faith in their intuition.  Instead they engage in a battle of words, that is
>destined for deadlock. Deadlock = no progress. Out of frustration, on both
>sides, it sometimes degenerates into verbal abuse.

And yet, we still do not have crystal power, vacuum energy, or a host
of other devices that -should- work if the claims of their inventors
or sponsors was correct.

I think a reality check is in order. But then again, the FDA (not a
skeptic of skeptical orginization) seems to be doing just this sort of
thing, they want to make vitamins prescription items. But this is
political, not skeptical.
 
>This is the psychology of what tends to happen.
>
>>> [`skeptical extremism' can retard knowledge]

I am still not convinced of this. I suspect self-interest, politics,
religion, and a host of other things will all have a much greater
effect, and that skepticism is not a cause. Rather a straw man.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: shelley@hfrd.dsto.gov.au (Andrew Shellshear)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:16:21 GMT
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation


An excellent book on the topic of unwarrented skepticism is 
the "Retrospectoscope".
I'm sorry, I can't remember the Author or Publisher but if anyone is
interested I'll look it up. It is mainly concerned with discoveries
in medical science that were largely ignored at the time, and the
reasons they were ignored.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Orthodox Judaism (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:13:27 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <5OCT199215364236@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|There are many other cases of new technology which have raised strange
|but interesting questions to Jews who are trying to cope with the modern
|world and their religious proscriptions.  I recently read an article about
|the disagreements going on in Israel about the use of the computerized 
|timers which can be built into televisions, VCRS, coffee pots, etc.  If
|you sit down in front of the TV at 2:00 PM on the Sabbath and the TV happens
|to come on (with your favorite program) due to prior programming, have
|you violated the Sabbath?  You have done no work on the Sabbath - but on the
|other hand, the spirit of the law certainly seems to have been violated.
|Is it right to use modern technology to elminate the inconveniences which
|your religious laws impose upon you?  

Hmm, well, I am not a Jew, but it seems to me that this is not all that
different than preparing the Sabbath meal the day before (a practice long
approved of).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Ezekiel Space Ship
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:57:30 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct09.154946.13556@watson.ibm.com> jec@pilatus.zurich.ibm.com (Jean Cherbonnier) writes:
|
|Does anybody have some information about this chapter in the
|Old Testament, where Ezekiel describes what sounds like the
|arrival of a space ship on earth, with extra-terrestrial creatures... ?

Sounds like someone has been reading too much Von Daniken.

Ezekiel saw a vision of *something*.  Calling it a spaceship is rather
stretching it.  And calling traditional Jewish heavenly beings as extra-
terrestrials is also a bit far fetched.

If you *must* have a naturalistic explanation an hallucination due to fasting
is *much* more likely than that a spaceship matching the rather bizarre
description given by Ezekiel.  (sort of :-))
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: Help me! Quantum physics are being claimed to create vampires!
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:25:13 GMT

All quantum physics gives us is the ultimate tautology: Everything is everything.
Subjective/objective - who gives a crap? My dog doesn't care - he just eats when he's
hungry, sleeps when he's tired, and wags his tail when he's happy. :-)

If one man asks about the Tao, 
and another man answers, 
then neither of them know it.

Lao-tse

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: UFOS and BOOMY IN THE NIGHT
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: World
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:51:22 GMT

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
: gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes:
: >
: >However,at least one rather bazzar UFO story was presented about two
: >or so years ago on PBS's NOVA.  I have forgotten many of the
: >details,
: 
: Why is that *ALWAYS* the case?  Why are the details *ALWAYS* fuzzy?
:

Because if the details weren't fuzzy, it wouldn't look like a face
anymore!

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Wow!  Look!!  A stray
Rosemount Inc.                                |meatball!!  Let's interview
                                              |it!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Date: 8 Oct 1992 00:17:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) says:

>In article <1992Oct6.174540.1577@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>|> 
>|> 
>|>                           LARSONIAN "Reciprocal System"
>Why is this posted here?
>

This is easily explained by the CORSELLONIAN "Reciprocal System", which I
developed while a humble law student at Case Western Reserve.  My theory
is simply that any newsgroup attracts posters with inclinations EXACTLY
the opposite of the inclination indicated IN THE newsgroup name.  For example,
most posts in alt.athiests are from Christians, most posts in sci.skeptic are
from gullable POLTROONS pushing Creationism, most posts in rec.food.veg are
from carnivores WHO want to flame vegetarians, etc.  FURTHERMORE, the MORE
opposed the POSTER is to the obvious purpose of the newsgroup, the MORE
he posts and the LONGER those posts are.  A corollary of my THEORY is that
in Usenet, the bad users drive out the GOOD; further, Usenet is facing
SENILITY as groups are INFESTED with CLOWNS with lots of Time on their
hands, while USERS with PRIMATE BRAIN FUNCTIONS are drowned out by the high
NOISE LEVEL and take up OTHER PASTTIMES.

Using my RECIPROCAL theory, it is possible to RECONSTRUCT all of the THREADS
in a group JUST FROM THE NAME!  Including threads that HAVEN'T bEeN WRITTEN
YET!

A note about my background... just because I don't have a fancy PH.D. in front
of my name doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.  I DO have a
BACHELORS DEGREE in electrical ENGINEERING.
-- 
Brad Corsello (bsc7@po.cwru.edu) 2L Case Western Reserve Law School
"The Fanaticks have always had a way of affecting to run into Per-
secution, and count vast Merit upon every little Hardship they suffer."
^ J. Swift.  "Factum clarum, jus nebulosum."  Rex v. Haddock.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Question of Humanity's First Language
Date: 13 Oct 1992 00:36:04 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct12.224849.27745@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	I note that language is a universal human feature, and that
>all groups of people are equally capable, to within individual
>variation. Furthermore, there appear to be some brain adaptations,
>such as the specialization of certain brain regions, for the
>generation and interpretation of language. These adaptations are
>universally present in our species, judging from language skills, if
>nothing else, and would presumably have dated back to the ancestral
>population. Now these adaptations would probably have not had much
>value unless they were put to work, so we can conclude that the
>ancestral population had had language.

Sorry, that argument doesn't work.  Huge chunks of the "junk" DNA in our
species is pretty much universally present.  Hell, it's even present in related
species.  As far as we can tell, there's no value to that junk DNA.  But it's
apparently been preserved for far longer than the brain adaptations you cite.

Remember:  Adaptations are retained IF it's they're useful, not ONLY IF they're
useful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: patricka@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Patrick Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Artificial movement of trees
Summary: Orpheus in the Woods
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:41:07 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



Now, Shoprite does the can-can blah-blah blah-blah blaah blaah
blah-blah blah-blah blaah blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah ...
 
Love,
Zemu
 
"Stick a fork in 'em; he's done." - Ann Richards
 
"We're fixin' to limit one." - Al Gore
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: wjiams@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:08:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.042039.5026@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
> 
> 
>>>One of the interesting things about the Tunguska event is the complete absence
>>>of solid meteorite-associated debris.  I remember one theory (I don't remember
>>>the source, or how reputable it was) that the object was made of frozen
>>>volatiles.
> 
>>...sometimes called a "comet". Not exactly a bizarre or crazy idea.
> 
> Well, it was the wrong SIZE for a comet.  Cometary impacts are supposed to
> be real end-of-a-geological-epoch type disasters; and if the Tunguska object
> was PART of a comet, then why wasn't the rest of it spotted?  It would have
> been very close to the Earth.  Small volatile objects are kinda rare outside
> of Saturn's rings.
>
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: UFOS and BOOMY IN THE NIGHT
Date: 9 Oct 1992 23:54:10 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 <gdavis.718655154@griffin>, gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes:
>  I have always considered myself and open-minded skeptic. For those
>who need a closed minded skeptic at least two examples come to mind,
>Scientific American's Gardner and the Amazing Randy. These two
>indiciduals almost seem to have an ax to grind when it comes to PSI or
>UFOs.

Gee.  I guess that's why Randi offers a prize to anybody who can demonstrate
psychic powers.  I mean, all you've got to do is agree on an protocol that
rules out stage magicians' tricks, then demonstrate the psychic powers, and he
pays you for having done so.  Don't recall when I've ever heard of anybody so
closed-minded.  (Gary:  That was sarcasm).

>However,at least one rather bazzar UFO story was presented about two
>or so years ago on PBS's NOVA.
>I have forgotten many of the details,

Why is that *ALWAYS* the case?  Why are the details *ALWAYS* fuzzy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Question of Humanity's First Language
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:05:37 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct12.123640.21156@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|
|	I know that this is amateur paleo-anthropology; I haven't seen
|this discussion elsewhere, however.
|
|	Conclusions:
|
|	According to Punc-Eq, humanity had a relatively small
|ancestral population, which almost certainly had one language or at
|most a small group of closely related languages.

This implication is true, *if* one follows the P.E. model.  There are many
anthropologists who believe that Homo sapiens evolved gradually out of
Homo erectus over most of the Old World.  (I have yet to see any viable
*mechanisms* proposed for such a process, so I remain on the local origin
side - but I felt I had to mention the alternative).

|	BUT,
|
|	This language may be forever inaccessible to
|linguistic-reconstruction techniques, and anything but the most
|cautious claims concerning it must be regarded with suspicion.

Not only due to difficulties in deep reconstruction, but also because,
given the 50,000-300,000 year time depth, it is likely that the most
recent common ancestor of *all* *living* languages was *not* itself
the original language of humanity.  Thus the original language would be
unrecoverable.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:36:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

We already saw this trash just a week or two ago. Why did you post it
again? You're behaving just like those "Holocaust revisionists," posting
garbage, then running away, again and again.

As if we'd take *anything* seriously from a guy who makes up a name for
himself like "Dr. Peter Beter"!! :)



-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: wjiams@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:39:40 GMT
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada

In article <1992Oct13.042039.5026@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
> 
> 
>>>One of the interesting things about the Tunguska event is the complete absence
>>>of solid meteorite-associated debris.  I remember one theory (I don't remember
>>>the source, or how reputable it was) that the object was made of frozen
>>>volatiles.
> 
>>...sometimes called a "comet". Not exactly a bizarre or crazy idea.
> 
> Well, it was the wrong SIZE for a comet.  Cometary impacts are supposed to
> be real end-of-a-geological-epoch type disasters; and if the Tunguska object
> was PART of a comet, then why wasn't the rest of it spotted?  It would have
> been very close to the Earth.  Small volatile objects are kinda rare outside
> of Saturn's rings.


	But what if not all comets ARE "end of geological epoch 
Disaster types?  Frank (Louis Frank, articles in Geophys. Newsletters 
and book "The Big Splash") has suggested that literally millions of 
house sized comets enter the earth's upper atmosphere every year--most are 
vaporized in the outer atmosphere.  What if Tunguska was just one of these 
that got through the atmosphere?  
	To expand the discussion, I'd be interested in knowing if there is 
anyone out there who has some familiarity with Frank's theory.  I find it 
fascinating and the evidence fairly convincing and yet it isn't reaching 
the textbooks.  Has it been discredited?  I haven't been able to find any 
solid arguments to refute his evidence/contentions.  It seems that if the
theory holds, serious rethinking about origin of oceans, origin of life on 
earth, etc. will be necessary. 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Subject: Re: Artificial movement of trees
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:01:54 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

Elementary stage magic uses the fact that black threads are essentially
invisible against a black background, and fine fishing line is very
hard to see unless the light hits it just right. If I wanted to move
some tree branches I'd run some fishing line, thread or wire (depending
on how close the observers were going to be and how big a motion I 
needed) to the part to be moved. Use small eyelets to make the
wire/thread/fishline turn corners. Have your confederate move jerk
the line when you cue them. No need to use anything fancy. 

What are the circumstances of the tree movement?

Chris Kostanick