HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Consensus: Too Sluggish or Too Hasty?
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:41:52 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
Summary: Pointing out some evidence
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Apr7.165901.25348@Princeton.EDU>, ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns) writes...
>In article <22483@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>>Personally, I see no evidence that mainstream science has ever been "too
>>critical" or too unaccepting of new theories, because of prejudice, lack of
>>understanding, or anything else for that matter.  In my (admittedly optimistic)
>>point of view, things are just about right, and the scientific community 
>>has done a damn good job over the years separating the chaff from the wheat.
>>
> 
>Have you ever read Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man"?
> 

Finally, a good example.  Yes, I must allow that exception.  However, for
fairness, I add the following few caveats (#3 is the most important).

(1) Nature recently reported work in which a researcher used MRI to measure
(in vivo!) brain size, and this fellow found a correlation between brain
volume and test performance (I think it was a standard IQ test).  So there 
are still people interested in this question, and it still seems open, IMHO.
Gould points out several scientific objections to accepting the validity 
of previous data, and this MRI study addresses most of these.  

Gould also makes a strong point of the underlying nonscientific motivations
at work here.  But there either is a correlation or there isn't, independent
of people's motivation for finding out the facts of the case.  If it should
turn out that there is a correlation, then we will have to deal with the fact
as a society as best we can.

(2) The example you give is a emotionally charged.  Many people make wierd
claims  (perpetual motion, vacuum energy, PSI, Relativity is wrong, etc.) 
which have no societal implications, and for which there is no a priori
reason for scientists to act irrationally about.  I go ballistic every time 
someone tells me that scientists are suppressing evidence of UFO's or perpetual
motion machines, or whatever.  Why would we do this?  I could become famous
by providing evidence for any of the things we are accused of covering up or
denying.

(3) Your example was not one of scientists being "too critical" or too 
unaccepting, but rather the opposite.  People jumped on an attractive
bandwagon.  So, my statement (above) stands unmodified, and your example is 
proof that we probably should be even more critical and hypersensitive to new
claims than we already are.

-Scott

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: New "Sightings" Series On Fox!
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:29:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr13.152917.1654
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


   The "Sightings" specials of Fox, which have done reports on UFOs and
ghosts, will now become a series! The first airs this week (the 17th?) on
UFOs, and they have future episodes on Montsers and other mysteries coming
up too. Check it out.
-- 
    __ This ISN'T about lazy Americans. This ISN'T about being uncompetitive.
 __/// This ISN'T about Japan bashing.          This ISN'T EVEN about racism.
 \XX/  THIS *IS* ABOUT OPEN MARKETS AND JAPAN DOESN'T HAVE ONE!  BOTTOM LINE!
       The Cryptozoology Information Network  Want on our Email mailing list?
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why Psychics don't win
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:09:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: donner.1992Apr13.160945.5328
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo

In article <703017779.7@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG> Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:

}In article <1992Apr6.110816@IASTATE.EDU}, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel
}A Ashlock) writes regarding precognition as follows, responding to
}Dave Kraus:
 
}   }} Come on you skeptics, is it that hard to say.. "I don't know."
 
}   } Come on, Dave, _I_ personally said I didn't know (about the
}   } existence of) God, Free Will, (the truth of) the Riemann
}   } Hypothesis, the Goldbach Conjecture, (the veracity of) personal
}   } anecdotes from San Diego and Boca Raton in the last month.
 
}   } I also state _for the record_ that I do not know if there are
}   } forces beyond the standard ones or peculiar manefestations of the
}   } standard forces; its just that precognition has terrible evidence
}   } compared to many far less plausible theories like evolution or
}   } the big bang.
 
}Actually, I knew you would say that.  ;-}
 
}You should know by now that it's a standard paranormalist's dodge to
}distract attention from a lack of meaningful evidence by appealing to
}the allegedly vast expanse of what is _not_ known about a subject.
}This is just part of the usual rhetorical game, selectively appealing
}to the inconclusiveness of knowledge, and ignoring the fact that _all_
}scientific knowledge is tentative.

Rick,
As you demonstrate here, it is the standard skeptic dodge to ignore
or dismiss meaningful evidence. Don't assume that PEAR will be
debunked. It just might be valid. 
 
}Playing theoretical footsie with skeptics on "open-mindedness" is
}_always_ more attractive to your average paranormal advocate than is
}examining actual evidence for testable claims of fact.

Subjectivity is a valid question in any argument and can be associated
with both sides of that argument. Don't belittle it.

Also, don't ignore the fact that "I don't know" is the correct answer to
many questions that individuals use subjective feelings to answer.
 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject: The Historical Jesus II:  Was Mark an Eyewitness?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 06:00:12 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Keywords: historical jesus, creation/evolution debate, gospel of mark

This is the second in a series of posts examining the historicity of
Jesus, specifically whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
It consists of quotes from references (in brackets) listed in the
concluding post.

Here is a simple diagram from [1](78) of The Four Source Theory tree:
	SMt  Mk  Q       SLk
	  \  |\  / \     /
	   \ | /\   \   /
	    \|/   \  \ /
	     |      \|/
	     Mt      Lk
It is a model (there are variants) of the sources used by the 
Synoptic Gospels in compiling their books.

[1](p105)
	In the second century, apologetic motives led the church
wherever possible to ascribe its gospels to apostolic authorship.
...The very attempt to connect the gospel with an apostle suggests 2nd
cent. apologetic, ... [and] It contradicts almost all that modern critical
scholarship has established with regard to Mark.  Form criticism has
demonstrated that Mark's gospel is the end-result of process of tradition
passing through the successive phases of Palestinian and Hellenistic 
Christianity, not a direct record of immediate eyewitness.
...a date c. 68 would be acceptable

[2](137)
	...Therefore the Mark of Jerusalem was not the author of the 
Gospel of Mark, but an otherwise unknown Christian of the second generation,
who perhaps bore the name of Mark.
... written shortly before A.D. 70 somewhere in the domain of Hellenistic
Christianity.

[3](134)
	The work was handed down anonymously, and it is ecclesiastical 
tradition that names Mark as the author.  the earliest evidence for this
is found in the so-called Papias fragment...According to this fragment,
Mark was the companion and interpreter of Peter ... This statement is
historically worthless.
...written between A.D. 67 and 69.

[4](98)
	It would be inadequate and inappropriate, however, to assume
that Mark was written as a historical archive when the eyewitness
generation of Jesus's followers was about to die off.

[5]
	[Childs is very difficult to get a simple answer out of,
because he is not interested with historical questions of authorship.
He views these as being too reductionistic.  There is no specific discussion
of the dates/authorship of Mark that I could find]

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The Hysterical Jesus:  HELP!!
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:24:19 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Institute



Help!!!!

Of late, my brother has become a fanatical follower of Jack van Impe
and his "end time prophecies"*.  While my brother normally is a
rational person, he has taken van Impe's message to heart to the
extent that he has altered his world view, has taken to praying for
the souls of his family and friends, and (most significantly) is
attempting to convert everyone with whom he comes in contact.

My impression of van Impe is that he does for religion what Lyndon
Larouche does for politics.  I am certain that his logic is based on
flawed assumptions, dubious evidence, and disingenuous reasoning.  I
am also certain that his claims will not stand up to scrutinization.

Can anyone out there point me to books, a FAQ list, or other
literature where van Impe's claims have been dissected?  If this topic
has come up before in this forum, I would appreciate the forwarding of
any relevant posts.  I am most interested in countering van Impe's
specific claims, rather than peripheral issues such as the
authoritativeness of the bible and divinity of Jesus.

Any help will be gratefully appreciated.

--Dave Wood

* In the event that this topic has not come up before, van Impe's
claims (which appear to mutate conveniently based on current world
events) center around the signs of the impending return of Jesus
around the turn of the century.  These signs include such evils as the
European Economic Community, UPC product symbols, credit cards, and so
forth.   While none of this stuff is new, van Impe evidently has a
special skill in coming across as an intelligent, learned man who
actually has a clue.
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorum
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:40:58 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <994@ubbpc.tredydev.Unisys.COM> wgh@ubbpc.tredydev.Unisys.COM (Bill Hutchison) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.023534.25868@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr8.004108.2697@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
>>   dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>> >What's tantalizing about FLT is this fabled note that Fermat wrote [ ... ]
>> >There are two possibilities:
>> >                  (a) he really found the proof, which is now lost
>> >                  (b) he had a mental abberation and was mistaken
>> or                 (c) he was perfectly sane, but [ ... ] he made a mistake
>>                    (d) he was lying
>or                   (e) he really found a proof, which was erroneous,
>                         but the theorem is true regardless.
>or                   (f) he died and his spirit came back and wrote the
                                                    note as a joke
                      (g) he was alive but only joking
                      (h) he didn't have a proof, but tantalized us with
                          the note because he had a sadistic streak
                      (i) he didn't have the proof, but slyly wrote the
                          note to excite us into trying to find the
                          proof ourselves.

Actually, (i) is probably not as stupid as it sounds. After all, if it
wasn't for the intrigue caused by the note, FLT would have been long
forgotten as some boring old theory that nobody could be bothered with :-)
From: M..Stirner@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (M. Stirner)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Why Psychics don't win
Date: 5 Apr 92 03:14:58 GMT

GR>...Anyone can, after winning a lotto, claim to
GR>have used psychic powers to have enabled them to determine the number
GR>a priori.  what I stated was that no one will be able to win some
GR>number of successive lottos.

There was an interesting case a couple of years ago that someone may
remember in more detail than I:

"The winners of a midwestern state's lottery revealed in a number of
interviews that their daughter had been killed in an accident some
months before.  The dead girl's mother claimed that in a dream she had
been advised repeatedly by the dead girl to 'play her lottery ticket.'
Later, when cleaning out her daughter's car, she found a lottery ticket
that her daughter had filled out but not used.  The mother entered it &
won."

This was infotainment fodder for a few days.  Hey, I bet she doesn't do
_that_ twice!
 .   ~
 .   M.

   
 * SLMR 2.1a * Source: "Spring Bouquet From the Weapons Cadre" S.F.,CA

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Francisco - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: misc
From: geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz (Geoff McCaughan)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:07:24   M
Organization: The Equinox Network CHCH NZ (Node SATORI)

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

> It keeps recurring because there is a lack of clarity, that distiguishes
> between (A) life NOW and (B) the START of life.

Ha ha, still pretending you don't know eh? Well you've got some of them
fooled, but not me.

> How did life bootstrap itself into existence, against the prevailing
> disorder?

No, stop! You're killing me.

> I don't pretend to know the answer. But if someone does then they can put
> finally put the matter to rest.

Tell me it isn't so! Nahh, I don't believe it, c'mon 'fess up - in a few
days you're going to say "I knew the answer all along of course, but
sometimes I lead the debate in a particular direction so people can
come to the answers themselves. Perhaps it'll sink in this time."

| Geoff - Sysop Equinox (equinox.gen.nz) +64 (3) 3854406 (4 Lines)
| Email:  geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz
|         "If I post something lucid, is that satorial eloquence?"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Free Will QM etc.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:24:45 GMT

In article <22553@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.213643.11384@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de
(Thomas Kettenring) writes...
> 
>>I don't want to start the free-will avalanche again, but this
>>argument is not logical.  A system can show behaviour its
>>components don't show.  A computer can do things a flip-flop
>>couldn't dream of.
>> 
> 
> The flip-flop could never dream of it, but neither could the computer (yet)!

   Cute but irrelevant.

 
> The question is not whether having more components allows more sophisticated
> algorithms to be run, but rather whether there is any entirely new such as
> consciousness or free-will can emerge from complexity,  Clearly our existence
> argues that consciousness emerges from compexity.  Free will is another
story.
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   In the absence of any quantatative understanding of the nature of free will
this is a premature statement.  Can anybody demonstrate free will does not
arise from brute complexity? 

> -Scott

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"Free will -the universal lack of a good excuse for stupidity."
"Free will -a type of pro bono work."
"Free will -a demand made by barely literate terrorists during Mr. Tell's 
                imprisonment."
"Free will -the ability to not respond to posts on Usenet."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: _The Mismeasure of Man_
Organization: Effete Corps of Impudent Snobs
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:37:09 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Apr12165028@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>My question is this though: does Dr. Gould believe/suggest/imply that
>all people have the same mental potential at birth?

Here (edited) is what Gould himself says in "The Mismeasure of Man":

	The hereditarian fallacy is not the simple claim that IQ is to
	some degree "heritable".  I have no doubt that it is, though
	the degree has clearly been exaggerated by the most avid
	hereditarians.  ...  The hereditarian fallacy resides in two
	false implications drawn from this basic fact:

	(1) The equation of "heritable" with "inevitable".  To a
	biologist, heritability refers to the passage of traits or
	tendencies along family lines as a result of genetic
	transmission.  It says little about the range of environmental
	modification to which these traits are subject. ...

	(2) The confusion of within- and between-group heredity. ...
	The common fallacy consists in assuming that if heredity
	explains a certain percentage of variation among individuals
	within a group, it must also explain a similar percentage of
	the difference in average IQ between groups -- whites and
	blacks, for example.  But variation among individuals within a
	group and differences in mean values between groups are
	entirely separate phenomena.  One it provides no license for
	speculation about the other.

This is from chapter 5, "The Hereditarian Theory of IQ: An American
Invention", under the subheading "The dismantling of Binet's intentions
in America".

I went to the trouble of looking for this passage when I ran into
people who insisted that heredity has *NO* influence on intelligence,
and that by defending the idea that there was any such influence I was
guilty of the terrible heresy of BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM.  In defending
their point of view they cited a number of authorities, including
Gould.  I could not believe that Gould would state or imply that
intelligence isn't influenced by heredity, because such a claim is
contrary to the theory of evolution.  I went looking, and found that
Gould says no such thing.

>[I know that the
>pre-natal environment can affect this potential, but let's ignore that
>for now.]

There was an article in the Sept. 1987 issue of Discover, in which
pairs of identical and fraternal twins separated in infancy were
located and tested.  It was found that identical twins' test scores
matched each other more closely than fraternal twins did.  Prenatal
environment would have no effect on these results.  I don't know how
well accepted the results were, or whether they were ever published in
a peer-reviewed journal.

-- 
David Canzi
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: noahs ark
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:32:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <puchm.703424727@marsh> puchm@marsh.cs.curtin.edu.au (Richard Puchmayer) writes:
>Hi
>    Did anyone hear about this guy 'finding' noahs ark?
>    We had it on TV a few days ago.  Just wanted to know who
>    else knew about this and what you think of it.

Did they find it AGAIN this year?? Almost every year, the Creationists
send a team off to Mt. Ararat, and each year they report finding it.
It then turns out to have been an ark-shaped rock, and off they go
again to search the following year.
  
If anybody has the details on this, please let me know. I want to
write it up for "Psychic Vibrations."
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968
From: ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolution and God
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:49:42 GMT
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Apr7.133637.21999@bradford.ac.uk>, K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) writes...
>...I believe
>the absence of intermediate forms is one reason why the theory remains an
>hypothesis.
> 
>Kathy HH

    From "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution", by R. Cuffey,
    J. American Scientific Affiliation _24_, no. 4 (December 1972).
    Reprinted in _Science and Creationism_, by Ashley Montague (Ed.).
    Oxford University Press, 1984. Copyright held by the ASA, an
    affiliation of Christian men and women of science, Box J,
    Ipswich MA 01938


    "If we read the paleontologic literature...we find that the fossil 
    record contains many examples of such transitional fossils. These
    connect both low-rank taxa (like different species) and high-rank
    taxa (like different classes), in spite of the record's 
    imperfections and in spite of the relatively small number of
    practicing paleontologists. Because of the critical role which
    transitional fossils played in convincing scientists of the
    occurrence of organic evolution, paleontologists have been
    appalled that many otherwise well-informed persons have repeated
    the grossly misinformed assertion that transitional fossils do not
    exist. Consequently, after a relatively brief and non-exhaustive
    search of the literature immediately available to me, I compiled
    the examples of transitional fossils presented here [in Ref. 1].
    At least enough of these can be readily examined by anyone seriously
    interested in this topic that he can be convinced of their 
    implications, I believe; collectively, they (and the many other
    similar ones which a more extended search would find) comprise a
    massive body of evidence which cannot be ignored or explained away."


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: pl160988@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: NP-Hard problems
Keywords: NP-Hard, test, clairvoyance
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:44:43 GMT
Organization: I.T.E.S.M. Campus Monterrey

Daniel A Ashlock writes:
>   This is a cute idea; C. Frogs objections are good too: I want to offer
>another objection.  NP-hard problems are sort of inherently easier to treat
>with parallel machines.  You just sent the different processors off down the
>different branches of the search tree.

This is not exact. Unless you have an unlimited number of processors,
the complexity of NP-hard problems is not reduced when treated with
parallel machines. If the brain is a computer, it will be at least as
hard for us to solve NP-hard problems as for any computer, no matter how
many neurons we have (unless you have an exponentially increasing number
of neurons. In a few seconds the Universe could not contain your
brains).

A harder test for a psychic would be to find the solution of a
non-computable problem, like the halting problem. Given an arbitrary
program, to find whether it will eventually halt or not. I think this
would be irrefutable proof of psychic ability, since *there is no way*
to solve this problem in any known way.

On the other hand, you might argue that the brain is not a computer, but
something superior. Believe me, solving non computable (or even NP-hard)
problems would require a trascendental superiority, and to believe in
this superiority is at least as hard to believe as believing in psychic
ability.

Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso
pl160988@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx