HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Worthless on philosophical grounds.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:41:11 GMT

In article <716191101.0@iphase.FidoNet.Org>, Cliff.Fleming@iphase.UUCP (Cliff
Fleming) writes:
>       You're late Mr. Ashlock!

   As usual.

>  [other examples of right wing propaganda on the comics page badwidthed]


>      I agree that such tripe and propaganda can be nauseating at times. But
>let's be fair about the situation.I'm sure that plenty of "conservatives" have
>been irritated reading many episodes of substance abuse by Duke in Doonesbury.
>Steve Dallas from Blo> om County was regarded as a questionable role model by
>some. (Tried a tequila fannybanger?) Since newspapers have to try to please
>everyone, it only makes sense that they mix a little right wing flatulence in
>with their other, more liberal, daily strips.

>     At least Mr. Hart attempts to put a little wit in his topic. I didn't 
>think the 486 strip was a bad pun.
>                                                   Fleming

   As a pun, it was O.K., but there's another point here that I've been making
poorly so far.  I'll try an be clear and concise this time.

   Skeptics, as a group, are in favor of thinking things through rather than
choosing the niftier slogan and shouting like crazy.  Once someone else chooses
a slogan many skeptics (myself included) undergo skepticus interruptus and
start practicing our shouting voice, perhaphs with a shred more humor than our
opponents.

   In the case of many of the B.C. strips I was objecting too it wasn't Mr. 
Hart's opinions that got my goat (I've heard them before, I vote, I have faith
in the democratic process) but rather the fact he was supporting the
anti-thought, anti-rational method of deciding on a position.  Take the RU-486
pun (please).  RU-486 is an estrogen blocker.  It can potentially treat many
medical conditions.  To ban it from U.S. researchers because it can also be
used for cheap, safe abortions may condem a number of women to really annoying
and unneccesary death by breast cancer (we won't know until we can do the
research).

   Mr. Hart's mindless sloganeering is an example of not thinking things
through, of failing to question your own positions in a rational fashion, of
anti-skepticism (shocked gasp).  I'm tempted to compare this with Doonesbury's
creator who does background research five days a week and occassionally
lampoons his own side.  While Doonesbury is massively unfair in its satire it
has the faint footprint of skepticism in it.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Concise (adj)  -A code phrase indicating that the speaker is about to embark on
a lengthy session of irrelevant babble.  (Reprinted without permission from
the Hardcourt-Legbrace Dictionary of Obscure Terminology.)

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:11:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.204336.4377@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>In article <26133@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>
>>Do have any doubt that the brain is the seat of your consciousness?  
...
>Clearly the physical state of the brain affects consciousness, but that's
>hardly the same thing. I would be very interested in any evidence that the 
>mind can be identified as a physical phenomenon, much less "located".
>
>mt

Well, let's see. There are the corpus callosum severance experiments,
which appear to indicate that in some cases awareness can be divided
by a scalpel. If the integration of the field of awareness cannot be
accomplished without the corpus callosum, then the claim that consciousness
is somehow independent of the brain becomes difficult to entertain.

Along a similar vein, there is the syndrome[whose name escapes me], in which
visual awareness can be destroyed, without the patient being _aware_ of the
deficit.  It is the latter symptom that suggests to me that consciousness is a
function of the brain, for it indicates that it is consciousness _itself_
that was damaged, rather than just a sensory process.

Conversely, there is the _blindsight_ syndrome in which patients lose
visual awareness, but surprise doctors and themselves by being able
to point at lights or track them with their eyes.

A description of these symptoms can be found in Patricia Churchlands
_Neurophilosophy_. Blindsight is discussed in this months Scientific
American Pg 157. 

Regards,
	Max G. Webb
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:16:10 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Sep6.204336.4377@meteor.wisc.edu>, tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes...
>In article <26133@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
> 
>>Do have any doubt that the brain is the seat of your consciousness?  
> 
>Sigh. Yes I do. The brain is an observable phenomenon. Consciousness
>is what does the observing. Other than one's own consciousness, the
>phenomenon is not observable and must be considered subjective.
>In order to prove your assertion in a scientific sense, you need to define
>your terms. I have encountered no satisfactory definition of consciousness
>that would allow it to be considered observable by rigorous science.

Does this mean that you think that if we were to disembody your brain and
attach it to some kind of artificial sensory units (cameras for eyes, etc.)
that your conciousness would cease to exist?  Or conversely, do you think
that removal of any of your other organs would affect your consciousness?

Although I cannot define consciousness with scientific adequecy, I am 
confident that both you and I are conscious.  Your last statement leads me
to suspect that you have backed yourself in to a philosophical corner in 
which you are not convinced that anyone around you is sentient in the 
same sense that you are.  Is this a true statement?  Personally, I am 
willing to accept this fact as an axiom of psychology.  Otherwise, no
progress is possible.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Nietzsche and Evolution (was: I visited the ICR in person)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 14:11:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Btw9CG.LBL@research.canon.oz.au> andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman) writes:
>hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>|>Friedrich Nietzche: "He was strongly influenced by Darwin's
>>|>theory, especially its racist implications."
>>
>>There is in fact quite a bit of truth in this part. Nietzche did in fact
>>advance a moral theory based on evolution, Marx used evolution as part
>
>And its interesting to note that Nietzche was anti-Christian in that
>theory (The Anti-Christ) saying that Christianity was making the
>species weaker by promoting support of the weak.

Actually, while Nietzsche discussed evolution and Darwin although not
to any great length, he expressed a definite preference for Lamarackianism.

The late Walter Kaufmann wrote in his "Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist,
Antichrist" (Princeton Univ. Press, 1974, pp. 287-293),

    "two clearly stated themes that can be traced through almost all
     of Nietzsche's writings [are] ... the belief in the heredity of
     acquired characteristics and the conviction that race mixture
     might favor the attainment of culture - both in nations and in
     individuals.... Nietzsche envisaged the genesis of Greek culture
     out of a veritable bedlam of Oriental civilizations .... his whole
     philosophical position hinges on the view that only the weak fear
     chaos while powerful natures organize it."



-- 
  
        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: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Why are we the first?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:14:03 +1000

Monday September 07 1992, Bruce Watson writes to All:

BW> My father believed that it was possible for a civilization to have
BW> formed prospered and died out before ours, say between 2 billion and 3
BW> billion years ago. With continental drift all evidence could have been
BW> ground out to a smear. Why is South Africa so rich in gold? Could it
BW> have been a 2 billion year old Fort Knox?

I don't think the fossil record has any creatures that could have had a
civilisation dating from that time.

I suppose giant molluscs might work, and perhaps some crustaceans. We don't have
any that are terribly smart, but perhaps they could exist. Reptiles could do it
too, but we'd probably have their relatives (the equivalent of apes) in the
fossil record. As far as I know, there are none with really good brains and
hands.

Why is South Africa so rich in gold? Only bits of it are, because of geology.
Why should a totally alien race have a Fort Knox anyway?

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Info needed: change in ratio male/female
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 23:36:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.152202.11146@news.nd.edu> wlamonac@purcell.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca) writes:
> ...
>I'd heard the opposite (and not just for Germany, but for any war-torn
>country)- that more boys are born to make up for those who were killed in
>the fighting.  Either way, the story is an urban legend- as far as I know,
>the male/female birth ratio does not change.

  The ratio certainly shows random fluctuations, but in addition there
is a small age-of-mother effect.  To the best of my memory, younger
women give birth to a slightly higher percentage of male children than
older women.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 4 Sep 1992 12:02:32 CDT
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
 <1992Sep3.062836.7924@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

In article <1992Sep3.062836.7924@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, twlane@nyx.cs.du.edu ()
says:
>
>If you finger believer@world.std.com  you find that the account does indeed
>belong to Frank G. Sesco.  I wonder if he left himself logged in and
>someone decided to play a joke.

Probably not. I scanned some of his other posts,and it's hard to believe that
anybody would be dumb enough to let that happen three times in a row.

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So there. Nyaah.               **
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:26:09 GMT

The Memphis Zoo is running an exhibit of Dinamation animated mechanical
dinosaurs.  It is called "Dinosaurs Live". Since the exhibit opened
in May, 6 people have asked for refunds when they found out that there
were no real live dinosaurs at the zoo.
-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Life Spring...Request for References
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:06:13 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

My understanding is that est no longer exists.  Erhardt sold it to his employees,
and it is now called "the Forum."  I don't believe Erhardt himself is involved in
this sort of activity any longer.  Erhardt has never had any connection with
Lifespring to my knowledge.
---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Fred Hoyle: Comets Benefit Mankind
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date:  9 Sep 92 12:42:34 GMT

mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:

>kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus) writes:

>>some researcher was trying to attribute the seasonal outbreaks of
>>flu to extraterrestrial origin, the August meteorite showers bringing
>>with them the virus.  Did this ever receive any serious attention?

>This sounds like Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.  They received 
>mostly scorn from the biological community, I believe. 

>Fred Hoyle is one of the great figures in 20th-century cosmology; he
>was one of the founders of the steady-state theory, and I think he is
>currently supporting yet another modified effort to resurrect it.

	(additional Hoyle information...deleted)
>-- 
>Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 

Last week (2 Sep) I attended a lecture given by Hoyle at the Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory.  His topic came from a book which
he reviewed (did not give the book's title) for a British science journal.
According to Hoyle, when he discovered the book's unconventional hypothesis
he understood why he had been chosen to review it.

The basic hypothesis is that periodic bombardments of small cometary bodies
could explain advancemts in human society from the retreat of the glaciers,
to the development of metalurgy, to the biblical legend of Joshua and the
sun standing still over the ancient battlefield.  Hoyle appeared not to be
sold on the idea, but rather was presenting the hypothesis "as a liar 
speaking before the jury", leaving the audience to reach its own conclusion.

Now, for some specifics.  Each impact is on a scale with the 1908 Tunguska
explosion in Siberia.  However, during each bombardment, there was an anual
explosion of this magnnitude over a period of several tens of years.  The
recurrence of said bombardments occur at intervals of 1600 years.

Specific relationships between the postulated bombardments and events in 
human history were sketchy, as the entire lecture lasted only one hour.  One
of the events tied to the theory was the fall of the Holy Roman Empire in
A.D.500.  The historical record's lack of evidence of a bombardment by small
comets at this time is attributed by Hoyle to religious supression of 
scientific observations.  As an example he cited the supernova of 1054, which
later became Messier 1, the Crab Nebula (however the supernova was recorded
by Chinese, arab, and possibly American Indian observers, I believe).  The
only historical fact tied in by Hoyle to the fall of the Empire were
(Turkish?) reports of unusually high earthquake activity.

Hoyle declined to answer questions (blamed his hard-of-hearingness), but
reluctantly took 3 or 4 answers from the audience.  When will the next
bombardment take place?  Sometime around the year 2100, according to Hoyle.

Curt Roelle

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:54:04 GMT

In article <1570@adpplz.UUCP> martin@adpgate.UUCP (Martin Golding) writes:

   > If you need a moral framework - why not Humanism?

   Is the Humanist creed as easily locatable as Creationist science? That would
   explain why I hadn't seen it.

   Martin Golding    | I don't have to be right.

You would be able to find it if you tryed opening your eyes!  The
Humanist Manifesto II is regularly published in "Free Inquiry".  I am
sure that some one has a soft version and will post it...

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The most detestable wickedness, the most
Field Robotics Center,          | horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries
Carnegie Mellon University      | that have afflicted the human race have had
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | their origin in this thing called
(412) 268-3856                  | revelation, or revealed religion. It has
                                | been the most dishonorable belief against
The opinions expressed are mine | the character of the Divinity, the most
and do not reflect the official | destructive to morality and the peace and
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | happiness of man that ever was propagated 
or any other organization.      | since man began to exist.  Thomas Paine
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:36:05 GMT

In article <LEET.92Sep1130256@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 92 02:42:56 EDT, Marc.Cormier%nautical@r-node.gts.org (Marc Cormier) said:
>
>Marc>     Today's religious and philosophically enclined theologians
>Marc> will probably push the soul into the realms of the unattainable
>Marc> world. A obvious and logical choice. The last resort. Just as
>Marc> God has been pushed from beyond the far hills, to the depths of
>Marc> oceans to the end of the universe, so has the soul gone from the
>Marc> heart to the blood, to the brain, and the pineal gland.  Now it
>Marc> has nowhere to go. It does not exist. Another addition to the
>Marc> list of unproven objects that have to be "believed" in.
>
>If the soul is a material entity, this is true.  If the soul is
>non-material, it is false.  

I'll agree here.

>Furthermore, the idea that the soul
>started out in a physical realm is a faulty premise; Genesis 2:7 is
>quite clear on that point.

Sorry I don't take statements in books as proof even if they are written by
nobel prize winners. I want to see the logic behind the statement.

>Marc> Finally if there is no soul, why do we need anything else including... 
>Marc> .... GOD? Is this line of reasoning faulty, if so please respond. 

Why assume we need there to be a GOD, and why assume that ordinary
matter cannot form a "soul"?

>If we have no souls, we don't need God.  

I suppose you could have a God with no souls, but since there is no
evidence for either it doesn't matter.

>Since we do have souls, the 
>argument is moot.  1 Corinthians 15:35-50 discusses this at length. 

Please support your statements with evidence and logic quoting books
means nothing.
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:37:18 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep7.181145.29667@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
|
|Along a similar vein, there is the syndrome[whose name escapes me], in which
|visual awareness can be destroyed, without the patient being _aware_ of the
|deficit.  ...
|
|Conversely, there is the _blindsight_ syndrome in which patients lose
|visual awareness, but surprise doctors and themselves by being able
|to point at lights or track them with their eyes.

There are some even more bizarre syndromes than that.  The article on
sight in the Spet. 1992 Scientific American is a good starting place.

You might also try ?this week's issue of Science News (or was that last
week's).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: A bible verse...
Date: 6 Sep 92 10:12:21 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

When did this group become sci.sermons?
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     I am deeply CONCERNED and I want something GOOD for
 |warren@      BREAKFAST!
/ nysernet.org 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: edstrom@Elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca (John Edstrom)
Subject: Maps of the Charioteers of the Gods
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 15:52:32 GMT
Organization: Neuroscience Division, U of Calgary School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada


Somebody was telling me recently that they saw a scientist on TV who
claims that medieval cartographers had a map of Antarctica which
showed the mountains and valleys under the ice which only deep-sensing
radar has recently revealed.  The scientist, my source claims, was a
geographer who had worked on the survey of Antarctica.

This one is news to me.  It sounds odd to me that they could have a
map of the south pole when they didn't know about north&south America,
Australia, southern Africa and most of Asia and the Pacific ocean.


Anybody know anything about it?

John Edstrom | edstrom @ elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca
--
 RM 2104, HSc Building,  Div. Neuroscience
 U. Calgary School of Medicine,  3330 Hospital Drive NW
 Calgary, Alberta       T2N 3Y4
 (403) 220 4493  (wk)
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Did nostradamus predic
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:24:53 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com

In article <1992Sep14.094222.3782@csd.brispoly.ac.uk>, as_radfo@csd.
ac.uk (Arthur S. Radford) wrote as follows:

>>Original French:
>>
>>   Nous sommes ici, mais ou sont tes amis, alice
>>   La bas, sur l'herbe
>>   Qui est le garcon en maillot rouge
>>   C'est guy, mon cousin.  Et le garcon sous l'arbre est son compain.
>>
>>My Translation:
>>
>>   A man with a map on his forehead shall rise and fall
>>   Once a king, now he waits in line for toilet paper and chicken
>> feet   The old man who rides the great eagle called it the evil
>> empire   Three-score and thirteen years, and now bleeding-heart
>> liberals      are calling it the same.
>
> This 'translation' is crap if my schoolboy French is still reliable -
> it bears no resemblance in mening to the alleged original - IS it an
> original, by the way?

To paraphrase a recent post:  IT'S A JOKE!  GET A SENSE OF HUMOUR.

Cheers,
Rick M.

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)