HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 11:20 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec14.034645.791@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes...
>In article <1992Dec12.005349.25319@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.211744.1@stsci.edu> zellner@stsci.edu writes:
>>>  >  The strongest argument for crucifixion is "multiple attestation" -- all 
>>>  >  4 gospels (or 3.5 if you doubt the Markan addendum) describe it ...
>>
>>Of course, the accounts in Matthew and Luke are derived from Mark, so
>>you *really* only have two....
> 
>Robert, Robert, Robert...again your logic escapes me.  When it
>suits your purpose, you have so much delight expounding the
>*differences* in the different Gospels suggesting that this author
>purposely misheld information to make their point, etc, etc.
>Then, when it is pointed out that all 4 Gospels agree on some
>point, you poo pah that by saying that two were derived from the
>third.  You cannot have it both ways.  If in your mind, the
>differences in the Gospels take away from their authenticity, then
>the likeness in the Gospels must add to their authenticity.

If two accounts are word-for-word identical, it is likely that one is
*copied* from the other, and you don't have two independent sources
for the account.  If two accounts *contradict* each other, then you
know that at least one of them must be false.  Some kinds of similarities
discredit sources, and some kinds of differences also discredit sources.
Get it?

>>>St. Paul also refers to Jesus's death on a cross, in his letters to the 
>>>Galatians and Corinthians.  Of course Paul wasn't an eyewitness, but he 
>>>mentioned in Corinthians that many eyewitnesses were still alive, and his
>>>information had to come very early.
>>
>>Yes, but in 1 Thessalonians - argued by many scholars to be the oldest book
>>in the NT (although probably only 1 - 2 years before Galatians), Paul not only
>>fails to mention the cross, but more significantly, says that THE JEWS, not
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>>the Romans, executed Jesus.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>The 1 Thessalonian letter is basically a short one (1950 words) with a specific
>purpose in mind.  What logical reason do you have for Paul to have mentioned
>the crucifixion in that letter specifically?

Read the underlined portion of what you quoted, and verses 14 and 15 of
1 Thessalonians.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:41:31 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec15.053457.14466@udel.edu>, mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy) writes:
|> 
|> Now, with regard to remedies that are on the order of a few percent
|> strength, there *may* be an effect such as you are describing.  If you
|> want to call this homeopathic, that's fine, but you'll have to distin-
|> guish between the ~8% concentration remedies and the 0% ones in order
|> to have any argument at all.  

Though in the particular case of Arnica as a pain reliever, I seriously doubt it.
Given the nature of the symptoms it treats, I suspect a natural analgesic, or
perhaps a natural anesthetic.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Read this book or else
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:09:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.173737.1@stsci.edu>, hathaway@stsci.edu writes in part:
|> 
|>  "Villard Books recalled about 100,000 copies of 'Pen & Teller's How to 
|> Play With Your Food' yesterday after discovering a 'sugar packet' included 
|> with each book actually contains a chemical irritant."  

This is a pretty silly comment by the paper.  The reason for the recall
is not so much what is in the packet as the fact that you weren't supposed
to be able to get it open.  It wasn't supposed to be sugar inside it and
it wasn't supposed to matter what was in it.  There is an 800 number to 
call to get a corrected version of the packet if you  already bought the 
book.  No I don't have the number handy.   Call the place you bought the
book.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: lost skills of the ancients (was pyramids)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 17:36:33 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:



>I've heard claims that the classic violins have improved with age,
>and even a claim that the improvement was due to being played well.
>Obviously, modern replicas would have trouble on this point.
>-- 
>Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

One possibility that is sometimes not mentioned is that nobody bothers
to keep instruments that are not so good. That is to say, there may be
a selection effect at work here. I don't deny that Amati and the rest 
weren't excellant craftsman but not everyinstrument with their name on
it was personally made by them and its hard to believe that in the 
course of making many instruments over a long career that even the 
best maker doesn't turn out a dud every now and then. The lore 
associated with secret varnishes and etc. may simply be 
professional disinformation intended to preserve one's market (these 
guys were businessmen, after all).
Cliff Bettis
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Testability
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:41:22 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Dec11.101212.9469@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:

|> 
|> BTW, could you please define your criteria, besides evidence, for theory
|> acceptance and rejection.  I would like to understand what they are.

I'm afraid the translation of this request is "Would you please provide
the content of a good course in the philosophy of science?"  I can't do
that in this medium.  The issues are complex and require at least some
foundations in logic, epistemology, and some history of science.  When
I *did* teach courses I taught them primarilly from the perspective that
the *central* issue in the philosphy of science was that of criteria for
theory acceptance and rejection.

What I *can* do is point to some places where these issues are discussed.
I already mentioned Conant's books for some historical background.  At
the risk of repeating myself (at least in some newsgroups), the following
are a good start:

	_Philosophy of Natural Science_ by C. Hempel
	_Philosphy of Biological Science_ by D. Hull

	(Both are very short paperbacks that cover the basics.)

	_Theory and Evidence_ by Clark Glymour

	_The Scientific Image_ by Bas van Fraassen
		(or some of his more recent books)

	_The Structure of Scientific Theories_ (edited, I think, by F. Suppe)

One important criterion in theory acceptance/rejection is what I have called
"inter-theoretic support" -- informally, the support (direct or indirect)
that one theory lends to another.  For example, the oxidation theory had
such support from the emerging atomic/molecular theory, while the phlogiston
theory did not.  The negative weight hypothesis of the phlogiston theory
was somewhat at odds with other other (physical) theories, and taking it
seriously would have required rather gross revision of those theories.

Oh ... A *very* good basic introduction to epistemology and fundamental
issues in the philosophy of science is _The Web of Belief_ by Quine and Ullian.
This might be good to start with, and then go on to some of the others.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21408 alt.folklore.urban:31299 alt.atheism:23724 alt.feminism:6094
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban,alt.atheism,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Ritual Abuse Taskforce Alleges Poisoning
Date: 16 Dec 1992 00:24:59 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <7514@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes:
=>Some task force members, including psychologist Vicki Graham-Costain,
=>said a satanic conspiracy is trying to silence anti-devil forces by
=>poisoning up to 43 people with the toxic pesticide diazinon, which is
=                 ^^^^^^^^^
=
=>Task force member Catherine A. Gould, a clinical psychologist, claimed
=>she was poisoned after she raised the matter at the March board meeting.
=>She said her blurred vision and failed memory weren't psychosomatic, but
=>she admitted she never visited a doctor to be tested for the pesticide.
=>
=So, out of 43 who were poisoned, NONE of them were curious enough to
=make ANY attempt either to get cured or to find out what poisoned them?
=What a load of bollocks. 

More than that, they were diagnosed by psychologists and chiropractors, without
any laboratory tests whatever, as having been poisoned with pesticides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Hoagland? What's the deal?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:33:00 GMT

In article <schumach.724726769@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes...
>NASA and honest, cynical skeptics are screwed either way.
>If MO does not happen to image the Face at high res, that's
>proof of the Conspiracy. If MO does image the Face at high 
>res, it will obviously be a pile of rocks, and that's proof 
>that (a) the Conspiracy tampered with the image, or (b) 
>They are still there, dismantling the Face.

There is one other possibility, which gets NASA and skeptics out of
the dilemma.

Suppose the "face" turns out to be artificial?

Not likely, but possible....

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Read this book or else
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:37:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.015559.20069@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, kachun@spot.Colorado.EDU (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
> In article <Bz2527.2orM@austin.ibm.com> jlpicard@austin.ibm.com writes:
>>mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
>>> In fact, I picked up and read parts of the new book "How to
>>> Play With Your Food" by Penn and Teller.
>>...
>>> PPS.  My personal favorite gag is the sugar pack thing.
>>
..
>>
>>Fun book. 
> 
> I heartily agree.  I bought it last night and read it for two hours even
.. 
> as Penn and Teller's personal hero!  If that isn't enough to make you buy
> the book, what is?  :)
> 
>>
>>Craig
> 
> -- 
> *Ka Chun Yu               * Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy       *
> *kachun@spot.colorado.edu * Astrophysical, Planetary, and Atmospheric Sciences*
> *         --or--          * University of Colorado,  Boulder, CO 80309        *
> *kachun@vela.colorado.edu * (303) 492-6857                                    *


From 11-DEC-1992 Washington Post Page B3:

 "Villard Books recalled about 100,000 copies of 'Pen & Teller's How to 
Play With Your Food' yesterday after discovering a 'sugar packet' included 
with each book actually contains a chemical irritant."  

Be cautious, Wm. Hathaway
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Uri's Magic
Date: 20 Dec 1992 23:53:22 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec17.195948.12082@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
=In article <bgm21+r@rpi.edu> gallas2@rpi.edu writes:
=>In article <3062@israel.nysernet.org>, warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:
=>|>     "They invited me to come quickly to NASA's control center.  They have
=>|>     a problem with the space probe Galileo, which was sent to Jupiter.  It
=>|>     cost the a lot of money, has already traveled millions of kilometers,
=>|>     but its antenna has not opened.  They called me, and I will try to
=>|>     help them.  I will stand in the control center, I will concentrate,
=>|>     and by means of my mental power, I will try to open the antenna.
=
=>I really hope this isn't true.  I have never been one to underestimate the
=>stupidity of a Congresscritter, but this is too much.  If one of the senators
=>on the Senate S&T Committee believes in Uri Geller, I can understand why NASA
=>has so much trouble...How can you expect to ask for more funding for your 
=>research when the Congresscritter thinks you can just call in a "psychic" to
=>solve the problem for you.  Can anybody flatly deny this article and save my
=>faith in my country?
=
=I don't know, but the antenna is still stuck. Bend it, Uri, bend it!

Careful, Robert.  Galileo just a few days ago passed through perihelion, so
it's now just about as warm as it's going to get, and NASA's been hoping that
the warming would be sufficient to allow them to free the stuck ribs.  Based on
Geller's past performances, in particular the "broken watch" trick, I wouldn't
put it past him to claim credit if NASA's next attempt to unstick the ribs
works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21423 alt.folklore.urban:31370 alt.atheism:23810 alt.feminism:6115
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban,alt.atheism,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Hypnosis and Repression (was Ritual Abuse Taskforce....)
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:52:07 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <2933430839.2.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
>
>All but 2-dimensional.  8^)  Psychologists have a proclivity for pointless
>neologism, and "cryptoamnesia" is not only a wasted expansion of the
>vocabulary but etymologically incorrect.  Amnesia is the loss of memory,

Ha! This is the very first time I see this word.  I know the word
"cryptomnesia", litterally: hidden memory.  It refers to the situation
that someone remembers something, but forgot the origin. Like the old
gentleman who tells an anecdote as if he experienced it all himself,
even when he is telling it to the guy who told him the anecdote some
time earlier.

It seems that in a state of deep relaxation all kinds of memories 
can surface whose source has been forgotten.  From what I gather,
such memories may or may not be accurate.


JWN
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Wwy is the sky blue? (was Re: Daytime Stars - Not Donahue or Oprah)
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:55:50 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Dec14.172424.12830@xilinx.com>, by dif@xilinx.com (Diana Foss):

> The sky is blue because of scattered light. It was right the first time.
> Air molecues are approximately the same size as the wavelength of blue
> light (~ 4000 Angstroms) so blue light is scattered more strongly than
> red. Incidentally, this is why the setting and rising Sun looks red. At low
> angles, sunlight goes through lots more atmosphere, so much more blue light
> gets subtracted from the beam. White - blue = red.

I've seen a convincing demo of this, in a fishtank containing a solution 
(sodium thiosulphate + something -> sulphur) which slowly precipitated a
fine dust.  At one end was a daylight lamp (I took their word for this).
The sunset colours seen at the other end of the tank, and the blue sky
colours at the side, were uncannily realistic.
----
  __   __    Paul Singleton (Mr)           JANET: paul@uk.ac.keele.cs
 |__) (__    Computer Science Dept.        other: paul@cs.keele.ac.uk
 |  .  __).  Keele University, Newcastle,    tel: +44 (0)782 621111 x7355
             Staffs ST5 5BG, ENGLAND         fax: +44 (0)782 713082
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Read this book or else
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:11:35 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec11.173737.1@stsci.edu>, hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
=In article <1992Dec11.015559.20069@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, kachun@spot.Colorado.EDU (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
=> In article <Bz2527.2orM@austin.ibm.com> jlpicard@austin.ibm.com writes:
=>>mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
=>>> In fact, I picked up and read parts of the new book "How to
=>>> Play With Your Food" by Penn and Teller.

=From 11-DEC-1992 Washington Post Page B3:
=
= "Villard Books recalled about 100,000 copies of 'Pen & Teller's How to 
=Play With Your Food' yesterday after discovering a 'sugar packet' included 
=with each book actually contains a chemical irritant."  
=
=Be cautious, Wm. Hathaway 

The packet was supposed to be unopenable.  It wasn't quite as unopenable as the
manufacturers claimed.  You can write to the publisher for a replacement packet
if you've already bought the book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Believability of "Q" (was: Crucifixion of Jesus?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:55:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.192457.26807@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>
>1) I never said that they were independent sources.  I only
>disputed if they were copying from each other, or a common source
>(ever hear of Q?)

As I note in "The Making of the Messiah," the "Q" theory was invented
as a defense against the findings of critical analysis ("Oh, these
guys didn't just copy each other, they each copied this old, reliable
document called "Q"). Recent books seem to suggest that NT scholars
are finding the "Q" hypothesis pretty much untenable, but they *don't*
have anything better at this time. 

    C.H. Talbert speaks of "widespread loss of confidence " in the
    two-source theory that has occurred in the last fifteen years. He
    does not assume it or any other source theory in his recent work,
    _Reading Luke. A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third
    Gospel_ (NY: Crossroads, 1982). Cf. E.P. Sanders, "NT Studies Today,"
    _Colloquy on NT Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches_
    (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1983) 11-28: source criticism is in
    disarray and the synoptic problem must be regarded as open.

       - Jane Schaberg, _The Illegitimacy of Jesus_ (NY: Crossroad,
         1990, p. 225).

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: lost skills of the ancients (was pyramids)
Date: 12 Dec 1992 00:09:31 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <Bz4A67.E71.2@cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
|> 
|> kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner) writes:
|> >Perhaps only slightly less mundane, but we can't reproduce the violin-making
|> >process of Amati, Stradivari, and Guarneri, only a couple of hundred years
|> >ago, which they used to create instruments superior to anything made today.
|> 
|> I've heard claims that the classic violins have improved with age,
|> and even a claim that the improvement was due to being played well.
|> Obviously, modern replicas would have trouble on this point.

Along similar lines, the varnish used on old masters changes slowly
with time, and when it's cleaned off and replaced, we hear howls
of outrage.    The current notion of artistic excellence seems
to be conditioned by whatever the current state is of works of art
traditionally thought to be excellent.

jon.