HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
Date: 5 Nov 1992 19:43:06 GMT
Organization: None
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu


>        The 3rd-generation JUMBO Cosmospheres occupy more volume
>    than the Hindenburg blimp, and are ELECTRO-MAGNETICALLY
>    PROPELLED (can accelerate continuously and rapidly, and make
>    it to Saturn in three WEEKS!).  [Many of them are armed with
>    charged-particle beam weapons, neutron beam weapons, and/or
>    microwave brain-scrambling equipment!]
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          ^- Yes, I could see how this would be useful on a protracted
             deep-space mission.  The engineers could send along just
             one videotape for entertainment and scramble the
             cosmonauts' brains to make them forget the movie's plot
             each time it's played. No doubt a considerable savings
             of mass and storage space.

             Such a scrambling device, if mass-produced, would
             dramatically affect the capitalistic free-world order!
             Blockbuster Video stocks could plummet!  Chaos!

             Cool!

-- Tim Ikeda
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Legitimate but Trivial Anomalies ?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 04:06:51 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 <6164@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>Consider William Rowan Hamilton. He tried many ways to get a decent
>three dimensional calculus (in analogy with complex numbers) and finally
>hit on the quaternions.  Does that make his quaternions suspect? No.
>Albert Einstein tried many times to find a formulation for general
>relativity, and finally hit on his tensor formalism. Does that make his
>theories suspect? No.  F.H.C. Crick writes in his autobiography that a
>good scientist is constantly generating and trying out hypotheses. He
>(I believe, I don't have his book here) did this at the rate of about
>one crazy idea a day.  Does that make the idea of the DNA-spiral suspect?
>NO!  Need I go on? I hope not.

Just how many of these things you quoted are based on purely satistical
evidence?  Look:  If you take two independent distributions and repeatedly
sample N pairs of data from them, then about 1 time in 20 you're going to get a
correlation between them that's "statisticaly significant" at the 95% level.
That's what the 95% level means.  

>Gauquelin went about testing many astrological claims one by one.
>The one he found to be true, namely `famous professionals are born 
>relatively slightly more frequent when a characteristic planet is 
>rising or culminating' was not declared "true" becaue of one test
>result, but because many of his tests for this idea (with different
>professions and different planets) came out in conformity with his
>hypotheses.

And how many of his tests DIDN'T come out in conformity with his hypothesis?
That is a crucial question in evaluating the statistical significance of his
hypothesis.

>Many of the data he collected went into tests of this 
>idea.  So even if the first result was a fluke, the later ones are
>not flukes.

That depends on how many other tests he did where the hypothesis was NOT
supported.

>Moreover the allegation that he didn't report his failures is rubbish.
>If there is one researcher whose extensive reports about failed astrological
>relations have sereved to debunk astrology, then it's Gauquelin.

Then just how many studies were done to test this hypothesis, how many of them
supported it and how many failed to support it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:19268 rec.org.mensa:8106
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Astrology: Scientific Research
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:08:06 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1992Nov6.143346.960@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> banghartr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu (Rick Banghart, IPTV) writes:
>In article <zlsiida.353@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes...
>>there is an incredibly strong negative correlation between the soccer 
>>matches I predict as score draws and the ones that actually do turn out to 
>>be.  but there is no causal link.

>Pardon me as a speak from the dangerous place of "a little knowlege."
>When I spoke of "strong statistical correlation" I assumed that this
>was a correlation greater than that produced by chance.  My hunch
>is that your negative correlation between predicted match outcomes
>and actual outcomes would not exceed that produced by chance.
>If the negative correlation does exceed the chance level, then I
>would begin to look for a reason.  Again, I am not attributing 
>_meaning_, I am just concerned that we pay attention to the
>facts, no matter how they may contradict our previously held ideas.

Ahem, I exagerated: to make the point that correlation <> cause.
Parts of my method have consistently negative correlation, parts have 
consistently positive correlation, parts are just inconsistent.  Statistical 
significance of thses correlations is dubious.  I've been investigating 
these stats for 5 years now and I don't want any more advice.....


  You don't have to work to be mad here      email: d.budd@mcc.ac.uk
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Effects of the Full Moon
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:12:56 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   5 Nov 1992 01:16:57 GMT
>FROM:   Carl J Lydick <carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU>
>
>In article <1992Nov3.113533.8927@edinboro.edu>, j724664s@edinboro.edu writes:
>>My stepfather is a policeman in Washington Twp. NJ. From his experience there
>>is usually an increase in "radical" behavior during a full moon. i.e.
>>domestic disputes, fights, abnormal behavior, etc.
>
>Has he actually kept track of the numbers, or is it just "his impression"?  I
>strongly suspect the latter, since no study I've ever heard of has found any
>significant correlation.
>
>>I, myself, have had bad luck: girlfriend breakups, wiped out on my skateboard,
>>leaving a large scar, fights with parents, etc.
>
>Again, have you kept track of all the "bad luck"?  How many times have you
>wiped out on your skateboard when there WASN'T a full moon?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>

Live births at UCLA Hospital, 3/17/74 through 5/30/78

Phase Day	Total Live Births	Natural Live Births
1		406			273
2		390			273
3		425			291
4		412			287
5		391			270
6		396			282
7		399			293
8		398			276
.
.
.
14		411			279
15 (FULL)	385			268
16		397			270
.
.
.
For the whole table, see _The Skeptical Inquirer_ Summer 79.
			
-- 
jim tims 
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: beykema@infonode.ingr.com (Maurice Beyke)
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:01:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.172048.17508@lsil.com> gascan@dcst16.dc writes:
>> >At this point, I would invoke Hanlon's Razor:
>> >"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
>
>No, I meant Hanlon.  If you can prove that Heinlein said this and give a reference,
>I'll take his word for it.  However, I have heard this quote from at least two
>different sources, both with the same attribution.
>
 It was R. A. Heinlein, in (I believe) _Time_Enough_For_Love_, the Notebooks
 of Lazarus Long sections.  I'll look it up tonight to get a page number.
<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>
< Boris Mikey            | "You mean mainstream commercial  |Disclaimer:     >
< aka Maurice Beyke      |    nihilism can't be trusted?"   |I claim nothing!>
< mab@batman.b11.ingr.com| "'Fraid not, kiddo."             ----------------->
<                        | "Childhood is so disillusioning." Calvin & Hobbes >
 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: CSICOP Announcement
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:20:14 GMT

dnoelle@cs.ucsd.edu (David Noelle) writes:
: An employee of CSICOP has asked me to post the following announcement
: here.
: 
: ====================================================================
: 
: CSICOP [COMMITTEE FOR THE SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION OF CLAIMS OF THE
: PARANORMAL] ANNOUNCES BIGGEST FUND CAMPAIGN IN THE HISTORY OF 
: SKEPTICISM!
: 
: 	CSICOP OF AMHERST, NEW YORK, HAS ANNOUNCED A $3,960,000
: FUND CAMPAIGN TO CONSTRUCT AND ENDOW A NEW CENTER FOR INQUIRY.
: 

[...]

: 	WANT TO KNOW MORE?  SEND FOR FREE VIDEO.  CONTACT TOM FLYNN, 
: INQUIRY MEDIA PRODUCTIONS, 3965 RENSCH ROAD, AMHERST, NY 14226.  
: 716-636-1425.
: 
: ====================================================================

If I donated a few dollars, do you think they could upgrade and get
the lower-case option?

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Are you the self-frying
Rosemount Inc.                                |president?
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:24:04 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

I'd like to point out that the fact that something is patented does not mean
that it works.
---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: On topic? Right!
Date: 12 Nov 1992 22:51:55 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 <roelle.721593063@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
=mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
=
=>In article <1992Nov11.030810.1913@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
=>> If they are causing the death of people who could have sought medical
=>> advice, then it would not seem to me to be moral.  But you talked about
=>> intent.  What would be the intent be of such a preacher?
=
=>	Where have you been?  Here's a clue to the answer of your
=>question: $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
=>Mark Meyer                                              
=
=You have just proven John's point.  Most T.V. evangelists are
=charlatans.  They are to Christians as worms are to sheep; except T.V.
=parasites prefer the lining of wallets to that of intestines.  When
=John discusses Christianity I really doubt he is talking about Bro'
=Tilton :-).

How typical.  Someone points out the apparent motivations of ORDAINED MINISTERS
and your response is "but they're not *REAL* Christians."  So how come they're
still ordained?  Can't the *REAL* Christians spare the time for a little
self-policing?  If your *REAL* Christians allow the antics of these
televangelists to pass without comment except when someone else happens to
mention them, then the rest of have to conclude that you *DO* accept them as
real Christians.

=T.V. evangelism harms not only persons who find themselves in
=circumstances that make them easy to take advantate of, but also
=because of the public backlash against a segment of the population who
=call themselves Christians, a name that just happens to be used by the
=con-men on T.V.  who find it financially rewarding to adopt the 
=_Christian_ trade mark  and take advantage of freedom of religion in
=this country to make a $ or $ $.  With good tax benefits too >:-(.

So why don't the rest of you *DO* something about it?  Like make efforts to
have the churches disavow these peoply you claim (when it's convenient for you
to do so) are charlatans.

        H  H Y   Y PPPP   OOO    CCC  RRRRR III TTTTT EEEE   !!!
        H  H  Y Y  P   P O   O  C   C R   R  I    T   E      !!!
        HHHH   Y   PPPP  O   O  C     RRRR   I    T   EEE     !
        H  H   Y   P     O   O  C   C R  R   I    T   E
        H  H   Y   P      OOO    CCC  R   R III   T   EEEEE   !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: When will K2 grow up?
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:51:29 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

If you measure base to peak, I believe one of the Hawaiian volcanos holds the record.
Its peak is, of course, considerably below 29K feet, but the base is far undersea.
---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: CSICOP Announcement
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 13:36 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov5.100623.9263@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes...
>In article <40544@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, dnoelle@cs.ucsd.edu (David Noelle) writes:
>[...]
>> CSICOP [COMMITTEE FOR THE SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION OF CLAIMS OF THE
>> PARANORMAL] ANNOUNCES BIGGEST FUND CAMPAIGN IN THE HISTORY OF 
>> SKEPTICISM!
>> 
>> 	CSICOP OF AMHERST, NEW YORK, HAS ANNOUNCED A $3,960,000
>> FUND CAMPAIGN TO CONSTRUCT AND ENDOW A NEW CENTER FOR INQUIRY.
>> 
>[...]

C
>I believe that this campaign overlaps two groups, not only CSICOP, but also the
>Center for Free Inquiry, or something like that, a group I personally like
>somewhat less than CSICOP.  IS this a combined campaign or not?  I want to know
>where my money would be going.

The Center for Inquiry is supported by both CSICOP and CODESH
(the Council On Democratic and Secular Humanism).  CSICOP and
CODESH share their present offices.  CODESH publishes _Free
Inquiry_, a secular humanist magazine.
   There are many skeptics who are concerned about the overlap
of these organizations.
> 
>GXKambic
Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Innumeracy and innoculation aggro
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:25:27 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <nkjrm.18@taxus.uib.no>, nkjrm@taxus.uib.no (Rolf Manne) writes:
> 
>>I heard a nice radio play once about a horse racing scam based on this idea.
>>You need a series of 4 races in each of which there are 4 horses, and you 
>>give away the 1st 4*4*....tips, charge very little for the 2nd round, up it 
>>a bit for the 3rd, and hit the hooked tip-user hard on the last.  They got 
>>found out and beaten up in the play, but I still think I may try it someday.
> 
>>  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
> 
> I read somewhere about a proposed astrological service for determining
> the sex of unborn children: You send me 50 dollars and some pertinent
> information about the time of conception, etc. and I will tell you the sex
> of the child. If I am wrong you get your money back.
> 

A friend who had been reading anti-vaccination pamphlets quoted the
following statistic to me as proof that vaccination is ineffective:
"Of all the cases of <disease X> in the U.S. over the last <n> years,
about 49% were people who had been vaccinated against the disease."
(Sorry, I forgot a couple of details there).  To see why that statistic
proves nothing, imagine that 75% of the population had been vaccinated.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:40:10 GMT

smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith) writes:
: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
: 
: >60 minutes is a yellow journalism show with low marks for accuracy and
: >fairness.
: 
: After that hatched job they did on Audi, I have to agree.

Agreed.  It was quite obvious to anybody with "five firing neurons"
from the very beginning that those people were pushing on the gas
pedal and not the brake pedal as they claimed.

One interviewee claimed that he was pushing the brake pedal so hard
that he had shinsplints the next day.

The key piece of evidence was that there was nothing wrong with the
brakes on those cars.  Guess what happens if you get into any modern
automobile, press on the brake pedal, put the car in gear, and floor
the gas pedal.

Depending on the engine/drivetrain arrangement the car will twist one
way or another, you will ruin the transmission or the engine if you
keep it up, but the car doesn't move an inch.  The brakes, even shitty
ones, are more than able to hold the wheels still against the force of
any engine you can buy in a stock automobile.

Since the cars moved, the drivers must not have been pressing the
brake pedal!! (God, I'm smart!)  What then, were they pressing with
their right foot?

We have established that it wasn't the brake pedal.  These were all
automatics so there are two alternatives: nothing, or the only other
pedal, the accellerator.

The "nothing" theory predicts that the car would idle forward, crunch
into all that crap that we all have piled up in the front of the
garage and stop.

The "accellerator" theory would predict that the engine would race and
the car would leap forward.  Golly! that's what happened.

Any questions, 60 minutes?

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  There's a little
Rosemount Inc.                                |picture of ED MCMAHON doing
                                              |BAD THINGS to JOAN RIVERS in
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |a $200,000 MALIBU BEACH
                                              |HOUSE!!
From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 8 Nov 1992 23:17:05 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: itchy.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@itchy

In article <1dk5qrINN39n@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl  
J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1dk53sINN9or@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney  
(Michael Agney) writes:
> >Now, an argument that Christianity is wrong because the actions of its
> >followers is wrong can be tested.  If their wrong actions were  
definitely
> >required by Christianity, then Christianity is wrong.
> 
> OK.
> 
> >If their wrong
> >actions were based on an obvious misinterpretation of Christianity,  
> >Christianity is exonerated.
> 
> Obvious to WHOM?  Are you claiming that this "misinterpretation" was  
obvious to
> the people whom YOU claim misinterpreted it?  If not, then how do you  
justify
> your implicit claim that YOUR interpretation is more valid than theirs?   
Again: 
> If you're talking about some ideal concept that never has and most  
likely never
> will actually see implementation, then invent your own word for it.  The  
term
> "Christianity" is already taken.
> 

Tell me why you can say that YOUR definition of Christianity is better
than MINE.  Then, I'll try to show you why one interpretation of the Bible
can be preferable to another.

--
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |      search for the Holy Grail |
\---------------------------------------------------------/
-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
From: banghartr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu (Rick Banghart, IPTV)
Subject: Re: Astrology: Scientific Research
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: banghartr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD, USA
Date:  5 NOV 92 08:28:30    

In article <dhalliwe.720824224@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes...
>banghartr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu (Rick Banghart, IPTV) writes:
> 
>>In article <wiegand.720461033@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes...
>>>gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>> 
>>>Lack of theory doesn't cause me to automatically disbelieve something,
>>>but it does make it more difficult for me to believe it.
>>>The point I was trying to make was that the lack of an explination of
>>>*how* Astrology works make its more difficult to verify *if* it works.
>>>Without a cause-effect relationship to test the best you can do is to
>>>try and show a statistical correlation between human behaviour and the
>>>positions of the planets. This is much weaker evidence.
> 
>>Why is a statistical correlation weaker evidence?
> 
> 
>>It seems to me that a strong statistical correlation between
>>planet positions and human behavior, found by independent
>>researchers, and mutually confirming, would be very strong
>>evidence.
> 
>   You are correct: it definitely is strong evidence. We would be
>quite justified in concluding that human behaviour has the ability
>to control planetary positions.
> 
>   Or is that not what you mean? :-)

Thanks for the smiley.  My mailbox is full of helpful hints
to me about the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.
I did not say anything about what could be concluded from the 
evidence.  I said that a strong correlation provided evidence.
I agree completely that extreme care must be exercised in
forming conclusions, and that from the correlation of planet
positions and human behavior one could just as validly assert
that human behavior affects the planets' positions, as the 
converse.

I still maintain that the strong correlation (if it exists) points
to _something_ happening that requires further examination.  Even
if the mechanism is (for example) the tendency of people to 
conform to astrological "information" about themselves.

Rick
> 
> 
>Dave Halliwell
>Department of Geography
>University of Alberta
>Edmonton, Alberta
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic