HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Questions, old and new
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:38:28 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <wezSxvy00VID88UqYy@andrew.cmu.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (David A. Byler) writes:

>I think you have hit the nail on the head.  Who determines which
>scientist is reputable?  There are plenty of Scientists on both sides of
>this issue who are entirely reputable.

I take it that this refers to the Evolution/Creation debate.

Could you supply us with a list of these reputable creation
scientists?  Proof by authority is a very poor way of deciding things,
but I would be interested in a list of people who have done serious,
reputable scientific work (perhaps in a different field) and then
produced evidence to support the Creation.

>Aonsider also, the simple mathematical impossibility of Evolution.  It
>is such a wildly improbable thing that this world could have evolved
>through genetic mutations (mostly harmful or useless) that it is
>ridiculous to consider it.  It is also ridiculous to it is on the order
>of improbablility of a torando ripping through a large junkyard and
>creating a fully assembled 747 airplane from the piles of junk.

This is the Argument From Design.  A related variant is the Argument
from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  It is falacious.

Randomly moving things can organise themselves without any guiding
hand.  Consider crystals.  Crystals often maintain perfect
organisation for billions of atoms.  This regularity comes from the
random motion of the atoms in a liquid, but no divine intervention is
required to explain the existence of crystals.

In evolution it is true that the vast majority of mutations are
harmful, but those few that are beneficial to the organism will tend
to be present in its descendants, and because of the beneficial effect
it will have more descendants.  So natural selection acts like a
ratchet on fitness to survive: populations can get better but not
worse.  This effect is slight, but we are talking about a very LONG
time here.

Please note that this is a very short explanation.  If you want more
detail, please either see the FAQ (which I will be reposting shortly)
or the FAQs over on talk.origins (which is the proper place for this
debate).

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
From: ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The guns of roston (wa
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:11:43 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov5.200531.29251@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
[snip]
>Since gun-control has *NO* effect on crime, that can't possibly be
>the *real* reason people support gun-control measures.  So, what other
>reasons do can anyone suggest?

Giles is ignoring one of the famous maxims of cultural anthropology:

"That which is believed to be true, is true in its consequences."

As long as the electorate and/or lawmakers believe that gun control will
cut down the rate of violent crime, they will vote for it. Whether it
actually has the desired effect is almost irrelevant. In fact, it's
*completely* irrelevant unless statistics demonstrating the actual
relationship, whatever it may be, are not only found by empirical
investigation but *also* presented to the electorate at large, in a
format that a majority of voters and/or lawmakers will both understand
and believe. Given the tendency of humans to believe in their preferred
theories in defiance of evidence, the last two elements can be the
hardest to achieve.

-- 
York Dobyns		ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu
"The fires of righteous indignation may yield a pleasant feeling of warmth,
but they don't get the food cooked." -- Robert Mathiesen
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette)
Subject: Announcing a new gender neutral pronoun!
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 20:25:09 GMT


At last a viable solution has been found to reform the gratuitous 
chauvinist sexism speciism and objectism implicit in English pronoun usage!

Announcing the universal pronoun that is gender neutral and can be used
to reference an indefinitely specified person or thing!

This new pronoun is derived from pre-existing pronouns used of both genders 
and entities of non-gender!  This pronoun also fits normal English usage!

The proposal:  Combine the English pronouns She, He, and It into one 
inclusive politically correct universal pronoun as follows:

      She  
       he
        it.....   S/h/it!  

So instead of "He went to the market"
           or "She went to the market".  S/h/it would say,
              "S/h/it went to the market!"

This pronoun may also be used with the definite article and as objects of 
sentences.  For example:

      "How are all the little boys and girls?"  could be rendered:
      "How are all the little s/h/its?"

This pronoun could also be used in place of the terms man or woman or
wonmyn as in the following example:

      "Rush is a big man!" could be rendered:
      "Rush is a big S/h/it!"

The possibilities are endless!

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Gender neutral pronouns
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:47:12 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Wed, 4 Nov 92 22:13:06 GMT
>FROM:   Eric Pepke <pepke@scri.fsu.edu>
>
>Which of the following two statements is correct?
>
>A) If a person wishes to discuss gender-neutral pronouns, he should do it 
>somewhere other than sci.skeptic.
>
>B) If a person wishes to discuss gender-neutral pronouns, they should do 
>it somewhere other than sci.skeptic.
>
>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
>

C> If a group wishes to discuss gender-neutral pronouns, it should do
it somewhere other than sci.skeptic.

-- 
jim tims 
"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

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:30:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.020311.1270@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|> following observation.  Just for grins, I looked up "Jesus" in my
|> copy of the "Random House Dictionary" (hardly a Chrisitian
|> publication).  It's definition is as follows:
|> 
|> Jesus : born 4? B.C., crucified A.D. 29?, the source of the Christian religion.
|> Also called Jesus Christ.
|> 
|> As a control :) the definition of "Lincoln" is:
|> 
|> Lincoln: 1. Abraham 1809-65, 16th president of the US, 1861-65.
|> 
|> While not definitive proof that Jesus was crucified, it certainly bears out
|> the contention that it is the historically accepted version which is in
|> complete agreement with all four Gospels.  It would appear that the onus is
|> on you to make the opposite case.

Something that happened 19 centuries ago opposed to something that happened
2 centuries ago. Wasn't there a Dark Ages somewhere in those 19 centuries?
All the emotion, controversy, politicking, evil, etc. surrounding Christ's
life gives me no confidence in the Gospels. However, to be scientific,
there should be some way to test all this religious stuff.

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Subject: Re: Where has Galileo been all these years?
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:42:54 GMT

In article <1df9qjINNi5h@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <2930020228.3.p00168@psilink.com>, "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>>Did I hear correctly?  Has the Vatican now officially recognized the
>>!!!SUN as the center of the universe?  Surely not.
>
>Actually, it's officially acknowledged the Big Bang.

Talking of which, there is a fairly new book out challenging the Big Bang
Theory. But can't remember the publ. details. Anyone know off hand?

If the Big Bang gets out of vogue one day, I wonder how long it
would take the Vatican to readjust to the new paradigm-shift? :-)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Keywords: None
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:26:32 GMT

In <1992Nov5.133648.1557@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>In article <51419@seismo.CSS.GOV>, tcarter@seismo.CSS.GOV (Thomas Carter) writes:

>1)  A 12 year old boy takes his father's pistol to school with him.
>    Can school officials take it away?

The boy is violating Federal law by carrying the pistol to
school, so even if the states had no power to regulate the
carrying of concealed weapons, the gun can be taken and the
boy arrested.

>2)  A violent criminal is released on bail.  His first stop is
>    a gun store - can he be forbidden to buy the gun?

Criminals may not buy guns under Federal and State laws, so
they usually don't shop for guns at gun stores.  

>3)  I rent an apartment overlooking a schoolyard.  Early one morning
>    I screw down the tripod of an automatic weapon to the window sill,
>    attach the gun so it points down towards the schoolyard,
>    and sit there by the gun, smiling, waiting for recess.  Can
>    anyone make me not do this?

First off, you'll need a very expensive license for an
automatic, and the background check is quite thorough, so
it's unlikely you'll have this gun legally.  Also, the
manufacture and importation of automatics for civilian use
is illegal, so the existing stock is much more expensive
than semiautomatic weapons of equivalent quality.

Second, while you certainly have a right to keep and bear
arms (if you aren't menatlly unstable or a convict,
alcoholic, or drug addict, etc.), this does not give you the 
right to brandish those arms in public.  Threatening
behavior like what you describe is not protected by the 2nd
Amendment any more than fraud is protected by the 1st.  You
will probably be arrested and possibly sent off for
psychological evaluation.

>4)  You like to ride on public transportation, holding your Magnum
>    in your hand.  Is this against any law?  Occasionally you playfully
>    point it at an old lady and "Pow!  Pow!".  Is this legal?

Again, publicly brandishing your weapons is illegal.  You're
disturbing the peace and probably committing assault, too.

None of the scanarios you outline requires any new laws, or
even most of the laws already enacted.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Questions, old and new
Date: 12 Nov 1992 01:01:27 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 <2187@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
=In evolution it is true that the vast majority of mutations are
=harmful, but those few that are beneficial to the organism will tend
=to be present in its descendants, and because of the beneficial effect
=it will have more descendants.  So natural selection acts like a
=ratchet on fitness to survive: populations can get better but not
=worse.

Before one of the creationists steps in to parrot something out of a pamphlet,
I'll point out that there should be a further clause to that last sentence: 
"at dealing with the environment in which the natural selection is taking
place."  I.e., evolution doesn't plan ahead.   Should the environment change,
then it's quite possible that some ancestral population would've been better at
dealing with the new conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Keywords: None
Date: 7 Nov 92 05:33:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Nov7.053334.26389
Organization: Western Washington University

>       Rick Moen writes:
>>fact.  The U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment guarantees that 
>>_well-regulated state militias_ shall have the right to keep and bear 


Read it again, Rick.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: tmis1692@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Challenge to Astrologers
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:42:52 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

OK. I was born 03/28/56 around 5:00am.  I would be impressed if an "astrologer"
could tell me something that only I would know.  (Lighten up.  I'm just having
some fun!)

KC - TMIS1692@selu.edu
From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 9 Nov 1992 00:14:06 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: itchy.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@itchy

In article <1dk7sdINN39n@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl  
J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1dk75hINNcef@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney  
(Michael Agney) writes:
> >Tell me why you can say that YOUR definition of Christianity is better
> >than MINE.  Then, I'll try to show you why one interpretation of the  
Bible
> >can be preferable to another.
> 
> Custom and usage.  That *IS* what determines the definition of a word.

Okay.  (You know, it seems that the postings here [including my own] are
clear in inverse proportion to their length, i.e. long postings are full
of ambiguity.  Let's keep it short.)

I'm going to have to admit that I can't readily apply that to inter-
pretations of the Bible.

Let's try something else:

If one argument uses incorrect facts, items quoted out of context, bad
logic, etc. and the other doesn't, the first is probably wrong.  Also,
if they both seem equally valid, but one is longer than the other, then
the first might be wrong due to accumulated small errors.  (That's why
I'm trying to shorten my arguments.  It can be very tricky to find the
little errors, but it can be done with enough patience.  Please try to do
that with my postings.  I don't like making wrong arguments.)

Now, if there is no reason to prefer one interpretation to the other, then
there is a problem with the Bible.

(By the way, my own experience has been that Christianity is used to mean
that which all Christians believe, and not what individual Christians
believe.  "Custom and usage" must have been different in my neck of the
woods than it was in yours.)

--
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |      search for the Holy Grail |
\---------------------------------------------------------/
P.S. We've lost track of the original argument, i.e. whether or not
Christianity can be judged on the basis of its followers' actions.
I think that one deserves more thought.  Let's get back to it.
-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Subject: Plausible Denial (WAS Re: Measurement & Precision)
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:39:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.193413.8719@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>In article <6143@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>>I 'm sorry that I can't share that opinion. The legitimacy of a question
>>has only to do with its content, as perceived by a general reader, not
>>with the inner workings of the mind or the motives of the person who asks.
>
>Sometimes people also ask questions for "plausible deniability".  Instead of
>directly supporting claims that you don't understand well, you can phrase them
>as questions: "What do you think about so-and-so evidence for so-and-so claim?".
>If the evidence turns out to be nonsense, you can then deny having actually
>claimed anything; after all, you were only asking a question.  And who knows,
>maybe you stumbled on something sensible; then you act as though the claim was
>yours all along....
>

Not that I'm in the habit of doing that, but what's wrong with that?


>It seems fair not to answer such questions unless the questioner clarifies
>whether the claim is theirs or not, so they can't deny it when it goes wrong
>but admit it when it goes right.


What's makes you think your the moral cop?
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19239 alt.paranormal:2466 alt.alien.visitors:8154
From: turner@webb.psych.ufl.edu (Carl Turner)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Jeane Dixon Predicts Bush Victory
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:15:15 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Univ. of Florida, Psychology Dept.

In article <MMEYER.92Nov4110240@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
In article <1992Oct22.021634.1950@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
|> Well, folks, it's official now. The Great Psychic has spoken: George
|> Bush is going to be re-elected. In the tabloid "The Star", Oct. 20, 1992,
|> she predicts that "George Bush ekes out a win." 

|	For those of you scoring at home, she was WRONG.

|> And, because of the Perot factor, she says, Bush will "carry Texas by
|> a small margin."

|	She was RIGHT on this one.  


Actually, she could be wrong or right, depending on how you interpret the
sentence. I refer you to the following article:

Begin included text -------------

Perot no factor in outcome, analysis shows.

By E J Dionne, Jr., the Washington Post

Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the
outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices 
of Perot supporters.

[Text deleted]

In most states the second choices of Perot voters only reinforced the 
actual outcome.  For example, California, NY, Ilinous and  Oregon wnet to
Clinton by large margins, and Perot voters in those states strongly 
preferred Clinton to Bush.  On the other hand, Texas and Florida went to 
Bush, and Perot supporters in those staes preferred Bush to Clinton.

[Remainer of text deleted]

End included text -----------------

Now, how do you interpret the statement that "Bush would take Texas by a 
small margin because of the Perot factor?"  If by that she meant that 
Perot caused Bush to win a state that he might have lost, then she was
wrong.  On the other hand, if she meant that Bush only won by a small 
margin (but would have won by a large margin) because of the Perot 
factor, then she was right.

Please note that I'm not accusing Dixon of being intentionally ambiguous.
I didn't see the original prediction. I'm just pointing out that even a
(relatively) simple sentence can have more than one interpretation.

-- 
vxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxv
v  Carl Turner                            Psychology Department             v 
v  turner@webb.psych.ufl.edu   University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611  v 
vxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxv
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: The Efficacy of Prayer
Reply-To: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:55:51 GMT


Carl writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.155222.21131@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:

>=Let's say for argument that all of Christianity is defined by the statement,
>="Love is the only path". I think that most of us would agree that this is
>=a noble sentiment and goal for humanity.

>I'd say that it's a referentless generalization, subject to so many different
>interpretations as to be useless.  Worse than useless, since some people will
>probably be deluded into thinking that it actually MEANS something.

I don't know Carl, it means alot to me. To me love is no delusion, although
it is hard to stick into an equation.
 
Would you say that the word "love" itself is also subject to many different
interpretations and therefore is also useless?

>=It's not Christianity that is at issue, it is basic human nature. Whatever
>=human belief systems exist, there will be someone there to misuse it for
>=his/her own benefit. That includes skepticism, science, psi,... you name it.

>If Christianity is in conflict with basic human nature, then it's useless.  At
>best, it will delude its followers;  at worst, it will cause the sort of
>perverse behavior somebody else has already ascribed to Christianity.  As I've
>said before, YOU CAN'T EVALUATE THE PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EFFECTS
>IT HAS ON ITS FOLLOWERS.  If you're going to talk about some purely abstract
>set of ideas, THEN TAKE IT *OUT* OF SCI.SKEPTIC.  There are lots of philosophy
>and religion groups out there where you can argue the equivalent of "how many
>angels can dance on the head of a pin" all you want.

Christianity is not in conflict with human nature. It is human nature to
interpret just about everything in many different ways. 

Sure, "YOU CAN'T EVALUATE THE PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EFFECTS
IT HAS ON ITS FOLLOWERS.", but saying that the ideas of love that Jesus
put forth are somehow responsible for the state of the Christian Church 
(Jimmy Swaggert, Oral Roberts, whatever) is a bit farfetched. There are many
other factors involved, like greed, which is un-Christian.

Finally, this whole thread has been abstract, why take it out of the
newsgroup now? If you are sick of it, stop participating in the discussion.

---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------