HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Keywords: cooperation evolution morality  
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:20:42 GMT

keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
>
>>It seems to me that the most natural mode of human behavior is to act in
>>one's own self-interest, without particular concern for others.  If this
>>is true, any philosophy that requires self-sacrifice for a greater good is
>>useless to the extent that it requires self-sacrifice.  
>
>I disagree.  I think that a natural morality exists.  It is an instinct--a
>product of evolution that allowed humans to live in groups, thus greatly
>increasing their survival rate.  Of course, in effect (in the long run at
>least), acting in regard to others is in your best interest, or else you
>won't get the things you want.
>
Keith,
	You're right in that this instinct has evolved, but why do
you chose to call it "natural morality"?  It's a loaded term, 
totally inappropriate for describing the phenomenon.  If interested,
read:
	"The Evolution of Strategies in the Iterated
	 Prisoner's Dilemma"  by Robert Axelrod
         in _Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing_ 
         (Research notes in artificial intelligence)
	 David Lawrence, ed. {ISBN -0-934613-44-3}

Axelrod has also written a book called _The Evolution of 
Cooperation_ (NY: Basic Books), which I have not read yet.

Although R.A. doesn't make this claim, I believe that it
provides at least a partial understanding of how humans
developed (read: invented) the concept of morality,
which is (I hope) destined to go the same way as other
outmoded, disproven ideas.  

Note:  Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I'm not claiming
that morality doesn't exist.  Obviously there's something
going on here, but like our ancestors we simply give a
name to something we don't understand.  This has the
effect of giving illusory explanitory power.  A good
example might be Apollo and his fiery chariot;  after
some persistence and yes, some persucution, scientists
were able to give a better explanation of why the sun
appeared to move across the sky.  

..don...

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19225 alt.paranormal:2464 alt.alien.visitors:8147
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Jeane Dixon Predicts Bush Victory
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:07:51 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown) writes:

>Now you have 16 people who know you were right in 6 of the last 6 
>elections.  In 1992 you send them letters reminding them of your
>infallible record, which they believe because they don't know about all
>your failures.  You offer to sell them the 1992 election winner's name
>for substantial money. I'd be surprised if you didn't get several
>takers, because people don't understand the laws of chance.

Yeah, but how many people would pay a substantial amount of money to 
find out who the next president would be?

The scam is not a bad idea, but instead of long term presidential 
predictions, do it using stock market prices instead.  Predict the 
direction of the Dow Jones movement correctly four years 
in a row, and there are some people who might pay a lot for that 
fifth yearly prediction.

By the way - I have heard of this technique for a scam before.  Was it the
plot of a movie, or something?
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
From: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Chi Kung?
Date: 30 Oct 92 23:07:50 GMT
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Oct28.221529.5394@walter.bellcore.com> 
kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner) writes:
>  Furthermore, the masters have the ability to project, or
> emit (without touching) their Chi onto the bodies of others in order to
> heal numerous ailments.

CSICOP did a field trip to China in the mid to late 80's.  One of the 
things they did was to test a Qigong healer.  The patient would lie down, 
and the healer would stand behind her head.  He would do his thing, 
wiggling his arms, and she would twitch.  The healer claimed that the 
effect resulted from the transfer of Qi.  He also said that having walls 
between him and the patient would not affect this.  So, they put him in 
the other room and closed the door.  The result?  He wiggled his arms.  
She twitched.  However, the episodes of wiggling and twitching didn't 
happen at the same time.

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: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: just me
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:53:18 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <GERRY.92Nov9124609@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>In article <1dk53sINN9or@gap.caltech.edu> magney@nntp-server.caltech.edu.ogi.edu writes:
>
>   I personally use the term "Christian" to refer to any person who believes
>   that the Bible (Old and New Testament) is completely accurate, and that
>   the main ways in which various denominations differ is in the
>   interpretation of the Bible.  Now, this definition involves a sizable
>   number of exceptions, but we'll let it stand for now and just be wary of
>   generalizing with it.
>
>This seems to be a contradiction!  If the bible is completely
>accurate, then there is only one way to interpret it, thus there
>should be a single denomination.  The fact that there are many is
>proof ( :-) for the humor impaired)  that the bible is not completely
>accurate.  [The bible's inaccuracies are, however, easily demonstrated.]

Ahh...But note the definition.  A Christian is one who *believes* the Bible
is completely accurate.  Complete accuracy of the Bible is not required for
such belief, nor is it proven *by* such belief.

I agree with your conclusion, but I point to the above as the motivator for
the incessant argument among groups as to which is the One True Faith...
:-)

David Pipes
robear@digex.com
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: Help Request - Hypnotic Refreshment of Testimony
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:51:22 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,misc.legal
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Help Request - Hypnotic Refreshment of Testimony
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:30:13 GMT


In article <1992Oct28.135123.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>, 
cigs13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk said:

> I've just gotten a call from BBC Radio Scotland looking for
> information on the use of hypnotic regression (which I'm told is
> better called hypnotically refreshed testimony) in a legal context.

This isn't precisely on point, as it deals with the hypnosis of
witnesses by the police during the investigation of a crime rather
than any hypnosis of witnesses during the trial, but...  If you've got
access to the Massachusetts Reporter (the collection of decisions
written by the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court) you might want to look up
_Commonwealth v. Kater_ (no, I don't have the citations at hand,
sorry).  Right now, defendant Kater is undergoing his third trial for
the kidnapping and murder of a fifteen-year-old girl named Mary Lou
arruda, his first two convictions having been thrown out by the SJC
due to that court's skepticism about the use of hypnotism to enhance
witness' recollections.  From the Boston Globe, 28 October 1992:

      Kater, 46, has been convicted twice of murdering and kidnapping
   Arruda and sentenced to life in prison without parole...  Each
   time, however, the state Supreme Judicial Court has overturned the
   conviction because the judge permitted evidence that had been
   obtained from witnesses after they had been hypnotized.  Two of
   these witnesses identified Kater as the man they saw driving along
   the street where Arruda was last seen just before she disappeared.

     Judge Peter M. Lauriat, who is presiding at this trial, ruled in
   January that in the case of these witnesses only prehypnosis
   recollections written down by investigators at the time they were
   made could be admitted.

Kater's primary (only?) defense in all three trials has rested on
questions of identity and alibi -- he claims that he didn't do it and
that he was working all that day in a doughnut shop in a different
town.  Accordingly, the prosecution's case has always depended heavily
on the veracity of the witness' reports of seeing Kater on that street
on that day... if it turns out that these witnesses had remembered (or
had _thought_ they remembered, as the case may be) enough details to
identify Kater only after they were hypnotized, the state's case may
very well sink without a trace.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:30:17 GMT
Reply-To: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo


Carl said:
>In article <1992Nov11.182546.23008@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:

>>......................... Don't confuse the Church with real spiritual
>>pursuit. I doubt if even Jesus Christ would like the way organized religion
>>has gone in many places on earth.
>
>As I've said before, if you're talking about something that exists only in the
>imaginations of Christian apologists, the thread doesn't belong in sci.skeptic.
>If you want to discuss it in sci.skeptic, you're going to have to do better
>than "well, the implementations aren't very good."  If a good implementation IS
>feasible, why doesn't it predominate?  All the evidence indicates that
>Christianity has rather fundamental problems.  I've said it before and I'll
>repeat it since apparently you've missed it in the past:
>	A PHILOSOPHY OR RELIGION THAT CHOOSES TO IGNORE HUMAN NATURE AND THAT
>	IS BASED ON A DENIAL OF COMMON HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS USELESS, BECAUSE IT
>	CAN'T LEAD TO THE OUTCOMES IT PROPOSES.

Organized religion is not the only implementation.  The way that humanity
lives is greatly affected by religion. Most of the people on earth have
some sort of religious belief system which effects their everyday life.
People don't always live up to the letter of the law, but they try, and
very often succeed.

It is amazing to me that you would think that Christianity, or any religion
is totally at odds with human nature. IT IS HUMAN NATURE THAT HAS DEMANDED
A NEED FOR RELIGIONS OF ALL TYPES. How do we explain the unknown? How do
we live together in peace with our fellow man? These are all questions
basic to our human nature.

If it is in our nature to murder, why do we make laws against it?

---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
From: Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: 2 vs 14, P vs J, etc. [was: Would "Noah's Ark" have been large enough?]
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1992 10:14:03

Friday October 30 1992, Ken Arromdee writes to All:

jds>> My other objection is that this reasoning relies on the "brilliant
jds>> idiot" hypothesis. This assumes the existence of someone who is
jds>> precisely intelligent enough to make a superficially plausible
jds>> scenario, but leaves a few clues which are a tantalising lead to the
jds>> truth.

KA> I doubt the compilers would have even thought that 20th Century people
KA> would be looking at the Bible with intent to analyze separate stories.
KA> By the standards of their time, and particularly the standards of
KA> commoners who probably never thought in terms of finding the different
KA> sources, there _are_ no clues left.

This thread says that there are two Noah stories; one with two of each animal,
one with variously seven and two. It would seem to me that if that were true it
would be pretty obvious. The circumstances under which this would be written are
also dodgy. Why should anyone leave these sorts of things in? Why, until now,
did nobody wonder at the discrepancy? We are talking about millennia, after
all.

As a matter of fact, the narrative seems quite straightforward to me. Perhaps
this assumption of conflicting narrative has come about because there's no word
in Bibilical Hebrew for "pair"; you just say "two". This means that when it
explains that Noah is to take pairs of animals, for breeding, it is literally
saying that he is to take two.

Later, when it addresses the issue of the clean animals, it has to resort to the
circumlocution of saying "seven seven" to mean seven pairs. For the unclean
animals it just says "two".

KA> If anything with clues is implausible because a competent forger (or
KA> compiler) would leave none, then it would be impossible to prove
KA> anything fraudulent.

If the clues are such that they lead to a testable hypothesis, fine. If,
however, the hypothesis relies on subtle and elusive clues, and the hypothesis
changes to fit those clues, then Occam's razor should be brought into play.

If we have no evidence of multiple authors apart from these subtle clues and if
an unbiased reader would not consider the existence of multiple authors, I
believe that this is as much a disproof of the hypothesis as can be made.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Date: 10 Nov 1992 05:12:30 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov9.124140.15658@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
=>>Please control your hormones, Carl :-)>
=>As it turns out, I don't have a lot of control over when the insulin I inject
=>each morning finally makes its way into my bloodstream.
=>>Your summary of the last foray was coloured by the fact that you didn't
=>>understand what I was trying to acheive by my questions.

=>>eg. my goal _might_ have been to acheive a long thread :-)
=>Well, in that case you're a liar, because you made statements during that
=>previous thread that are inconsistent with a claim that you simply wanted to
=>start a long thread.
=
=Carl, you've missed that little "eg" again.

No, Derek, YOU missed the "in that case."  I thought most Australians spoke
English as a first language, more or less.  Apparently some of you don't.

=Are you sure that insulin you are taking isn't affecting
=your eyesight?

Well, Derek.  Let's see.  You demonstrated in the thread on pi and random
numbers that you know little or nothing about mathematics.  In the thread you
started on QM and free will, you demonstrated your incompetence in physics. 
Now with this little gem, you prove that biology can't be your strong suit. 
So, Derek, do you know anything about anything, or are you just the moronic
jackass you appear to be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: avi@seal.imagen.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:04:53 GMT
Reply-To: avi@seal.imagen.com
Organization: none

>(i) The gospel-fictions tie themselves into bizarre knots to get the Romans off
>    the hook and put the blame for Yeshua's execution on the jews. The one point
>    that they couldn't deny was that Yeshua was crucified, so they came up with
>    this elaborate story about how the jews couldn't execute him themselves so
>    they presurred poor weak little Pilate into doing it, a story which is
>    demonstrable nonsense on several grounds. If, as the Talmud claims, Yeshua
>    *was* executed by the Jews using a jewish method (ie stoning) then they would
>    not have had to go to such lengths to make it look like the jews were
>    responsible for his execution by a Roman method. Indeed, they wouldn't
>    have mentioned crucifixion at all.

I agree, which means he was crucified, and by the Romans, leaving the Jews out
of the story all together. While the Jews saw Jesus' death as the surest and most
convincing sign that he was NOT the messiah (since he did NOT achieve any of the
requirements prior to his death such as world peace), they surely had nothing to 
do with bringing death upon Jesus. The fiction in the gospels, tying the Jews to
Jesus' crucifixion, was inserted later, because the Roman Empire adopted
Christianity and was faced with a terrible dilema: How to promote Christianity and
the Roman Empire, when the Roman Empire is reponsible for executing their own
God ? (answer: find a scapegoat and blame it on them, i.e. the Jews)

>(ii) The gospel version of the story was written far closer to the time of the
>     events narrated than the Talmud. By the time the Talmud was written 
>     Christianity was considered a dangerous heresy by the jews and 'Yeshua ben
>     Pantera' was a wicked and blasphemous magician. I find it difficult to
>     believe that the Talmud's account, biased and remote in time as it is, can
>     be relied on in this instance.

The actual date when the Talmud was first WRITTEN is irrelevant. The Talmud is
a continuation of the ORAL LAW, starting from Moses and kept alive (memorized)
by people of enormous mental capabailities and supreme memory, who were
specifically chosen for this task. So, writing it down simply preserved it
on paper - but it was NOT changed before, during or after.

On the other hand - 3 out of 4 gospels were written MANY years after Jesus'
death, by people who did not know him personally. Virtually, ALL the gospels were
rewritten in different times to accomodate historical "facts" that suited the 
political goals of the contemporary "Truth Keepers", at the time. 
I can't see how that could be accepted as a reliable historical source.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:47:25 GMT

In article <1dk5qrINN39n@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1dk53sINN9or@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
>>Now, an argument that Christianity is wrong because the actions of its
>>followers is wrong can be tested.  If their wrong actions were definitely
>>required by Christianity, then Christianity is wrong.
>
>OK.
>
>>If their wrong
>>actions were based on an obvious misinterpretation of Christianity,  
>>Christianity is exonerated.
>
>Obvious to WHOM?  Are you claiming that this "misinterpretation" was obvious to
>the people whom YOU claim misinterpreted it?  If not, then how do you justify
>your implicit claim that YOUR interpretation is more valid than theirs?  Again: 
>If you're talking about some ideal concept that never has and most likely never
>will actually see implementation, then invent your own word for it.  The term
>"Christianity" is already taken.

This is interesting Carl, that you would make the blanket
statement that no one has ever followed the ideal teachings of
Jesus.  Giving examples of people who have not followed the ideal
in no way justifies your conclusion.  But you're right, the term
"Christianity" is taken and it describes the *ideal*, like it or
not.  But don't take my word for it, look it up in the dictionary!

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Where has Galileo been all these years?
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:19:42 GMT

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
:
: >Actually, it's officially acknowledged the Big Bang.
: 
: 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? :-)

The Vatican didn't actually endorse the Big Bang as the way the
universe started.  It just stated that such a belief wasn't in
conflict with Roman Catholocism.

I'm not sure how they would feel about a steady-state universe.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Like I always say --
Rosemount Inc.                                |nothing can beat the
                                              |BRATWURST here in
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |DUSSELDORF!!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Legitimate but Trivial Anomalies ?
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:27:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.182940.15877@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes in part:

|> It is ironic that Jan is relegated to what might be perceived as a
|> defense of the Mars effect, and I suspect that his regard for Gauquelin
|> is well founded, for he evidently has studied the literature and done so
|> with a good understanding of the pitfalls.

Ironic, perhaps, but instructive.  There is no way to rationally 
(skeptically/scientifically) inquire into a spectacular claim without
actually learning its basis and supporting evidence.  Furthermore,
one must give all due respect to the people and ideas that you 
criticize.   (Note the assymmetry--one can make wild claims without
understanding any alternative views, and without respect to anyone
else's ideas.)

JWN has done his homework on this topic, and I tip my cap to him.

Talk is cheap, first class skeptical inquiry is very hard work.  
(Maybe this mottoe should be added to the FAQ.)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu