HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Summary:  See "Goedel, Escher, Bach" for more on this
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU
Distribution:  world
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 10:51:19 GMT

In article <TORKEL.92Aug31181620@bast.sics.se>, 
torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes...

>In article <59981@mimsy.umd.edu> 
>biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:
> 
>   >Perhaps a logician can give even more detail and examples.
> 
>  Actually your statements are a bit confused. But I don't think there is
>any reason to start lecturing people here about logic. The only point I
>would suggest as relevant to the agenda of the group is the following:
> 
>     People in this group and elsewhere often invoke "logic" and
>     speak as though 1) it was clear what is intended, and 2) there
>     can be no serious disagreement among rational people on "logic".
>     These assumptions are false.

Well, let's see...

If I disagree with your assertion concerning statement #2,
then that means that I assert that people can't seriously disagree about
logic; but this is a contradiction, since I _am_ disagreeing with you about
logic.  Thus, your assertion is proven by contradiction.

But!  How _can_ "rational" people seriously disagree about logic?
Logic is the only valid criterion that rational people _should_
apply, and if they can't agree on what logic _is_ then they can't even tell
if they are being rational or not.  But by _assumption_ they _are_ rational,
and therefore _are_ using logic, so they _can't_ disagree.  
Thus we have shown that the contradiction of your assertion is true, by
contradiction.

My brain hurts.

(Or else I'm not serious.)
..

Oh, _now_ it's clear!

;)

-----------------------------------
Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself Again
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:01:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.134238.661@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>The language you use on the net is an act. You are comparing your acts
>>>with my veiws. At least compare apples with apples.
>>When you deliberately ask questions that you know have misleading implications,
>>you are performing acts too, not expressing opinions.  (Example: asking how
>>science explains so-and-so; the misleading implication is that you don't
>>believe science can explain so-and-so.)                        ^^^^^^^^^^
>                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                                      That is an assumption.
>Ken, you persist in displaying this tremendous psychic ability of reading
>my mind and motives. That's pretty bold stuff on sci.skeptic. You've got guts.

I'm not using psychic abilities; I'm using ordinary human judgment.  It doesn't
require a psychic to recognize that repeated questions about how science
explains something, asked the way you ask them, imply that you don't believe
science can explain it.  To say that a statement has a misleading implication
doesn't imply that I can read either your mind or motives; it only requires
looking at statements.  To say that a statement is misleading is not a
judgment on the intent of the speaker, it's a judgment of the effect on the
listener.
--
"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:15474 talk.origins:10418
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:22:44 EST
 <1992Aug28.155544.15577@acuson.com> <1992Aug29.084817.802@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug29.084817.802@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.155544.15577@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>In article <2A9D3AC4.19887@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>>>lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>>I also doubt that all of science would fall apart if belief in
>>>>evolutionary origin fell by the wayside.
>>>
>>>No, not all of science would fall apart -- only biology, genetics,
>>>geology, astrophysics, anthropology, biochemistry, paleontology,
>>>zoology, archaeology, psychology, biophysics, ethnography,
>>>linguistics, and probably a dozen other scientific fields I am
>>>not recalling.
>>
>>And just how would those fall apart?  Oh, I can see paleontology, but
>>what about the others?
>>
> 
> Genetics should be obvious, as is zoology and geology. I'd also like 
> to mention [particle] physics.
> 
>>Linguistics depends on humans having evolved from primates?
> 
> Well, this escapes me, too.

No, what they mean is that languages also evolve.  Witness the changes in
English from Chaucer's time through Shakespeare to the current day.

Sue

> -- 
> -Tero Sand
>   EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
>   (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
>    cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:04:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.003330.4541@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>God playing evolution, is CREATION.
You seem to be stuck on this strange assertion.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:45:47 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>I don't know where you get the idea that I reject biology.  I reject a
>specific attempt at historic reconstruction.  That has little bearing
>on the biology of living species.  As far as relativity goes, I do not

Excuse me, but if you reject evolution, you have no other chioce but to
reject ~90% of the rest of biology.  Evolution is the basic unifying
principle of biology.  Without it, you would just have a bunch of tiny,
seperate pieces without any cohesiveness.  How else would you explain the
fact that python and whales have useless pelvises like other legged
vertebrates, or why chickens still have the genes to make teeth, even
thoughthey aren't expressed, or why all living things use DNA->RNA->protein,
or why humans and chimps are 99% genetically similar?

>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15300 talk.origins:10299
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:17:05 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <c2lJ02RJ1ft201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel
J. Hanes) writes:

>>  [Drew asserts impeaching evolution would not impeach science] 

> That's because you're ignorant of the scientific evidence for the
> theory of evolution.  Believe me, if the earth is really only
> 6,000 years old, our physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology,
> geology, zoology, genetics, and paleontology contain serious
> internal errors, for which I see no evidence at present.
> 
> Please name a science that does NOT evince strong evidence
> for an ancient earth, and evolution by descent with
> modification over deep time.

  Um, computer science.  You know, the one science drew knows something about.
(Now there's something obvious to hindsight).

> Joel Hanes

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:07:29 GMT
Reply-To: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <OTTO.92Aug27213622@tukki.jyu.fi> otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes:
>In article <52524@dime.cs.umass.edu> michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras) writes:
>   >None the less, I think you will find
>   >that among the *enormous* range of insect life that fills our planet
>   >there are some that match the description.
>
>   Examples, please.  Since this is to establish the accuracy of Leviticus
>   11:22, make sure the examples are of the specified types of insects.
>   You're making an assertion that these peculiar insects exist; prove it.
>
>Well, at least several species of praying mantis walk on only four legs,
>as the front limbs are the serrated-edge hunting tools, unsuitable for
>walking.  Their raised posture with catch-limbs spread wide give the
>insect its name.  I believe several types of mantis are common in the
>mediterranean region.
>
>I doubt though that this is one of the types of the insects that was meant.

That's correct (I _have_ seen mantises walk on four legs).  You cut my
paragraph about the contents of Leviticus 11:22, where I said it describes
locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers as examples of flying creeping things
that go on all four.

Still, looking over my request for examples again, it _is_ clumsily worded.
Asking for examples and then qualifying the acceptable examples does make
it look like I'm saying no insects walk on four legs.  I should have just
said "Give examples of grasshoppers, beetles, and locusts that walk on four
legs."

My apologies to all for poorly stating my request.


michael@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:35:27 GMT

In article <3658@execu.execu.com>, mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.165050@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >    1) Assume: God would not purposely trick people.
> >    2) Assume: God created the universe and gave it the apperance of age.
> >
> >  Which assumption do you think is false?
> 
> But he didn't trick everybody.  Those who believe the "revealed truth" are
> not tricked.  Therefore he only tricks 49% of the people.  (100% of those
> who consider the evidence rationally, however)

  Ah, but if even 1 person is tracked then God has tricked somebody.

> Assume: God tricks only scientists.
> Conclusion: It's far better to be one of the chosen who understand the
> revealed truth.  Don't confuse me with any so-called "facts", my mind's
> already made up.

  I am hoping some people a reasonable enough not to think this way.

> How can you possibly argue with someone like Drew?
> He is obviously incapable of rational thought on this subject.

  IMHO, Drew seems to be one of the most rational Creationists currently posting
(don't let this go to your head Drew).  Try comparing some time.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15159 talk.origins:10191
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:23:51 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug25.022454.9835@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>
> To:  Drew Lawson 

[deleted]

>  That "ignoring God" is an interesting phrase, too, implying that God
>is trying to get our attention, and we are consciously ignoring Him.
>What you mean is "not following my religious beliefs", right?

No.  If I meant "not following my religious beliefs," I would have said
so.  I meant "ignoring God" -- that is, leaving consideration of God
out of the system developed.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 09:01:16 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1272@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
[...]
>Steven Jay Gould means when he states that evolution is a fact.

Evolution *is* a fact. It's happening all the time.

[...]
>as a means of explaining human society. But do you not see that
>simply avowing evolutionary theory as being the only "right" 
>basis to look at these issues automatically limits what we can determine,
>yes scientifically determine ? 

I don't think the evolutionary theory is being promoted as the only
"right" theory. However, it's the only theory theory that fits the
facts.

>Darwin and Lamarck could be just as wrong

Actually, I think Lamarck was indeed quite wrong.

>as Galen and Aristotle were, but we have not found the way to
>extract the data yet which proves them so. Does this mean that mankind
>should stop trying to explain the unknown, or to challenge "received
>truth" ? If all theory (okay, wise guy, hypotheses) has/have to pass
>muster in relation to previously "proved" hypotheses, is this 
>really science ? This is what Medieval scholasticism taught. It is
>quite possible to be logically consistent, intellectually balanced,
>and just plain wrong if you are working off the wrong data. I would
>have thought this point to be relatively non-controversial.
>

You really do seem to miss the point. Evolution fits the data,
creationism doesn't. Of course you're "allowed" to think up alternative
theories, but I don't think it's asking too much to ask you to do some
research first, and to fit the data with your theory.

One last point...

>	As a historian, I would not hang my hat on evolution. There is not
>enough data there to prove beans. Whether Darwin was right or not depends
>quite solely on his ability to have made a calculated scientific 
>wild-ass guess. 

Maybe the evidence was scant in Darwin's days, but as I understand it
it's overwhelming now.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Derek Tops Dan!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 03:20:17 GMT

In <1992Aug30.052044.20689@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.112005@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>>	Personally, I respect someone who will say what they feel.  Dan always
>>begins correspondence politely, and gives the other person the benefit of the
>>doubt.  It is only when the use of reason has obviously failed does he support
>>to use of strong language.  Admittedly, this will seldom succeed in convincing
>>someone else where reason has failed.  On the other hand, on the net where 
>>silence is often misinterpreted as agreement or submission, ('by your refusal
>>to answer these claims ...', or 'the silent majority ... ') voluable disagree-
>>ment is often necessary.

>Where did you ever get the idea that silence is interpreted as agreement
>or submission?  

	This is a literal quote I have seen many times on usenet.  I am not
claiming it is a VALID statement, but it is often used.

>                 Let me ask you this question, if a famous scientist was
>attending a conference and you attacked his position but he didn't reply
>to you, would you really think he was agreeing or submitting to you?
>Or would you perhaps think that he didn't think your attack was worth
>responding to...

	I would think he (or she!) was an idiot for not answering my question.
If for some reason he cannot answer my question offhand (because he think I
misenterpreted his point, didn't think of it that way, whatever) then he should
admit it.  Otherwise, I interpret silence as not having an answer,  as well as
not having the courage to admit it.
	If he thinks I am not worth responding to, then I am equally free to
think of him as an arrogant ass.

>-- 
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15669 alt.culture.usenet:764
From: engberg@raven.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (daVe)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: fascinating... (was: D & D flame war)
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:14:11 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

i'm really glad that this discussion is going across the Usenet network
to be distributed to a large percentage of the world instead of using email
to flame each other.

whenever two people initiate such a petty and public barrage, they know
that the rest of the world really does care to watch.

in fact, we should all send them pleasant messages to thank them for providing
us with this enlightening demonstration of usenet.culture's central theme
in action:  "Propogate Crap Across the World at Other's Expense."

daVe "sarcasm?  huh?" engberg
--
don't blame SLAC.  i'm really not their fault, in spite of the glow.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: clarkk@nosc.mil (Kevin D. Clark)
Subject: Re: What is Intelligence?
Keywords: Intelligence
Organization: NRaD
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:24:39 GMT

Paraphrased from previous posts:

 Isaac Asimov's criteria for intelligence are (1) the ability to make and use
 tools and (2) the ability to use fire.  This eliminates whales, dolphins, and
 the great apes and may not be appropriate "definitions" for intelligence.

 Gerry Roston's proposed criteria for intelligence are (1) capability for 
 "rapid" controlled locomotion where "rapid" means the distance of one body
 length in a reasonable amount of time (Gerry's First Law of Intelligence-GLI1)
 and (2) capability for communicating abstract ideas (GLI2).  This eliminates
 plant life, but possibly not dolphins, bees or others.

Would GLI1 rule out those persons who for one reason or another had been ren-
dered unable to move without assistance (such as quadraplegics) or are we 
speaking in terms of the species as a whole (i.e. most human beings are capable
of locomotion)?  I have also heard or read that infants are at first incapable
of abstract thought.  Would they be considered "intelligent" by GLI2?  (Are
they considered "intelligent" now?)  I realize that in any species there will
be small subsets which do not have the characteristic abilities of the masses,
and that if a species was made up entirely of such individuals that it might
not survive, but I thought the question might be worth posing....

"Spooner"             "Freedom is irrelevant...resistance is futile!" -The Borg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      System Concepts and Analysis Branch 
                   Surveillance Systems Engineering Division
              Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center 
              Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Division
       (...and you thought YOUR company name was tough to remember!....)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:15:59 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug28.155544.15577@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

[deletion]

>Linguistics depends on humans having evolved from primates?
>(apoligies if I picked the weakest link)

  In a word:  yes.  Drew, is there a science that you DO know something
about?  So far it has become clear that you don't know any biology, 
astronomy, physics, or linguistics, that I've noticed.

  I apologize for the personal slam, I suppose, but think about what 
you're doing from our point of view.  We (I mean, we scientists and
scince students like myself) devote years of our life to studying these 
matters, and probably a lot of our spare time, because they're fascinating.
After all this time (as a Masters candidate, I've only spent 5 years of
formal education plus some 20 of reading the subject for its own sake)
someone shows up who clearly knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any science,
but still feels competent to tell us how we should go about it.

  Can you see how annoying that would be?  


-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:26:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.161550.15768@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>If, on the other hand,
>>the preponderance of scientists rejected evolution given the current state of
>>science, science would be toast.  Evolution is completely compelling on
>>scientific grounds.  Rejection of evolution must impeach all of science as
>>the methedology is uniform.
>
>You are the second I've seen with that view.  Perhaps you could tell me
>how science would be "toast" if evolutionary origin were discarded.

Certainly, Drew.  Were we to reject the theory of evolution, then we'd be
compelled to reject every other scientific theory that had no more compelling
evidence in its favor than does evolution.  This includes virtually all of
science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:15655 talk.origins:10566