From: marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: possible inclusions and subjects for FAQ
Summary: forgot to include the file (sigh)
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:06:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Possible additional topics to be addressed:

0.1: Add:
	Although some discussion of the creation/evolution controversy
	in sci.skeptic is inevitable, most discussion of this topic
	should be directed to talk.origins.  
0.5: Please add a reference to Asimov (even though he recently died)

1.3: Add:
   1.	Something about models versus reality.
   2.	It probably wouldn't hurt to add some thing to the effect
	"Science does not try to specify morals, or judge emotions or
	 actions as morally good or bad (except of course for 
	 the ethics of scientific research).  Scientists and skeptics
	 do not deny that there are areas which can't be examined by 
	 science, but claim only that science is the best way to 
	 acquire knowledge which can be reliably communicated to 
	 others."
    3.	"In fact, there are several results in twentieth-century physics and
	 mathematics (Goedel's theorem, the Heisenberg Uncertainty
	 Principle, the Turing undecidability theorem) 
	 that indicate that complete and certain knowledge 
	 cannot be obtained by scientific or mathematical investigation."
    4.  "Models for scientists can be judged by criteria including
	 effectiveness, specificity, robustness, elegance and naturality
	 (whatever these mean); philosophical truth is in some sense a 
	 non-issue."
1.8: How do we know evidence is reliable?  [probably after 1.2]
	[Testing methodology, repetition (again), double-blind testing
		(repeated in 4.2, but I think needed here)]
	[Statistical significance, meta-analysis]
1.9: The paranormal doesn't happen when science is watching.
	[Scientific experiments can be very subtle, do not require
	 an accredited 'scientist' or 'skeptic';
         you can set up logical paradoxes by deferring knowledge of
	 whether there is an experiment in progress.]
1.10: Can computer models be used to test scientific hypotheses?
	[Computer models have been used to argue for (and against) 
	 global warming, global winter, the ozone hole problem, the danger
	 of destroying the rainforest, etc.  Models are used (1)~because
	 they allow "experimentation" which introduces irreversible changes
	 without actually affecting the subject, and because a computer can
	 process and analyze data far faster and more accurately than a
	 human researcher. 

	 Lots of debate here.  The main problem is that a model (an
	 abstracted picture of reality) is being used to check another
	 model; the results are at best as good as the first (computer)
	 model.  On the other hand, the model usually reflects at some
	 level current scientific knowledge, so its predictions should be
	 treated as predictions of that knowledge.]

2.5: What is the current status of the Princeton PEAR experiments?
	[Radin, Nelson:
		most in the skeptical community still aren't convinced;
		but believe they are trying to do good science]
2.6: What is the current status of the Gaugelin [sp?] Mars effect?
	[Still very much up in the air]
	[or add these to 2.4]
2.7: Don't we keep revising science?  Hasn't science itself shown that not
everything is knowable?
	[Yes, but (as mentioned above) the progress of science is almost 
	 always a matter of refining old models into more robust or more
	 accurate new ones.  We can be almost certain that the consequences
	 of what we currently think of as physical laws are correct, or very
	 close to it, in the parts of reality we have already investigated.]

3.4: Add
	[Some channelers come from the distant past.  They can be asked
	 about events/climate/language in ways that can be checked and
	 disproven (or found consistent with the facts).  Precise knowledge
	 of, say, ice-age climate, clothing, language, housing, medicine,
	 and so on would be very welcome if one of these channels were for
	 real.]

4.12: What are folk remedies? (After 4.3, and change 4.4 to reflect)
	[Treatments that have been passed down in the oral tradition, often
	 in rural areas or among preliterate peoples.  While some of these
	 "remedies" are essentially magical---along the line of "bury one of
	 your shirts with a live frog on the north side of a well" (note
	 this is not a real example), or useless, others have some
	 effectiveness, at least in some cases.  Biologists and medical
	 researchers are now studying these mostly herbal remedies
	 extensively and obtaining quite a bit of useful knowledge.  Again, 
	 however, this does not make ALL traditional remedies, or even all
	 traditional herbal remedies, valid.]
4.13: What is iridiology? (After 4.6)
	[The notion that all diseases can be detected by effects on
	 the iris of the eye.  (If you ask me, it's these alternative
	 approaches that are in some sense reductionist---all ailments
	 can be detected at a single location, and treated with a single
	 family of treatments.]

5.0: Where can I learn more about the creation/evolution controversy?
	[talk.origins and its FAQ files, several of the sci.bio.molgen
	 groups, NCSE---Creation/Evolution, basic books and science
	 magazines; discussion of religious creationism (as opposed to
	 scientific creationism) can sometimes be found on some of the 
	 talk.religion groups] 

7.2: What about the Gaia hypothesis?
	There are several versions: 
	 [religious] the planet (or the ecosphere) is aware, and tries to 
		preserve life/itself
	 [strong] the planet/ecosphere reacts to preserve a homeostasis;
		if, for example, global warming raises the temperature,
		then various changes in the planet's biota will occur
		which will (in some period of time) lower the temperature
	 [weak] life effects the conditions of life

	No scientist would disagree with the weak version given here; at the
		other extreme, the "religious" version is not science
		(unless and until we can find signs of that awareness)
	Not only can we look at the ozone hole, global warming, or human
		pollution, but the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere
		is also due to the presence of life
	The strong hypothesis is very much a matter of debate.  Most 
		scientists don't believe it, some don't think it's science,
		but others feel they have good evidence.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic