From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Paying Attention (was: Reincarnation)
Date: 4 Oct 1992 00:30:31 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct2.230854.24355@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
=>>>Hmmm.  That seems a rather odd definition of superstition.  It means, among
=>>>other things, that a belief that a rabbit's foot will bring good luck is *NOT*
=>>>a superstition.  Please let us know what dictionary you use, so that we can
=>>>avoid repeating your mistake in purchasing it.
=>
=>From this you "thought he was saying that a belief in a rabbit's foot
=>was indistinguishable from religion"??????? Are you suggesting that
=>anything that "is *NOT* a superstition" is "indistinguishable from
=>religion", or did your conclusion come from something more specifically
=>related to rabbit's feet? This sort of logical leap is so far-fetched that
=>I suspect that in fact it arose from simple failure to pay attention to
=>what was written.
=
=Well of course I didn't pay attention to what was written to which I
=apologize.  Since I was arguing that religion and superstition were two
=separate uniquely defined terms, and someone was arguing that religion and
=superstition were synonymous, then I thought that he was arguing that
=a rabit's foot was religion (comes from trying to read 50+ postings/day).

No, what I was arguing was that your alleged DEFINITIONS were pure bullshit. 
I'm still waiting to hear what dictionary you claim they came from.  If we let
you make up your own definitions, you can quite easily prove that white and
black are the same thing.  That's what you appeared to be trying to do with
your phony "definitions" of religion and superstition.

=>Not to me, it doesn't. Are you postulating that an object's perceived 
=>ability to bring good luck _necessarily_ carries with it a perceived ability 
=>to ward off bad luck? (Or does this come from something more specifically 
=>related to rabbit's feet?) 
=
=Well, assuming that there's bad luck and good luck, then without good luck
=I would say that I had bad luck.

Hmmm.  You've just ruled out the possibility of an average day.

=>    A friend of mine buys lottery tickets on a regular basis, in the belief
=>that this could lead to good fortune. (In early 1991 he won $250,000 this
=>way.) I haven't asked Steve, but I strongly doubt that if he didn't get
=>around to buying a ticket one week he'd consider this an ominous
=>circumstance.
=
=Sure it is, he might have won the jackpot that week but failed to do it.
=I would say losing $250,000 is quite a turn of bad luck, wouln't you?

Not when the odds were more than 250000 to 1 against winning.

=Perhaps you have defined something called neutral luck?  If so,
=that is a new addition to the English language since luck is
=usually defined as the force that seems to operate for good or bad
=in a person's life (Yet another dictionary definition!).

How about the absence of luck, either good or bad?  Oh, I forgot.  You're one
of these Bible thumpers who can't bring themselves to believe that there's any
such thing, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.