HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:34:31 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Summary: 
Expires: 
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep2.124735.17228@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.115442.17858@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.163034.4443@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>>>No, I stand by my statement that they should all be presented as
>>>equally valid.  I doubt that many students would realize by themselves
>>>that there is no objective evidence to support the view that their
>>>religion is the "one true faith."  It is important that students
>>>understand that their religion has _exactly_ the same empirical
>>>footings (none) as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Wicca, or
>>>whatever.  You've got to get the point accross that people of other
>>>religions believe with equal validity and conviction that their views
>>>are obviously correct and that everybody else is being misled.
>>>
>>
>>I disagree.  By putting a validity stamp on any religion, you have
>>crossed domains and opened a whole can of worms.  For example, if
>>a religion advocates human sacrifice, is the teacher with a
>>straight face going to tell the class that this religion is as
>>"valid" as say Buddhism?  All their life, they have been taught
>>about the importance of human life, and the teacher tells them
>>that an equally valid religion advocates the opposite. Talk about
>>confusing people!
>
>I see no source of confusion there.  If human life is important, yet some
>religion advocates it, that's a clear demonstration of what the level of
>validity of religion is, isn't it?  Yet, unless one can come up with a reason
>why HIS divine revelation is more valid than the divine revelation of those
>practicing human sacrifice, the two religions are equally valid.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:56:21 GMT


> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:

>>I fully understand that someone out there is likely to ridicule me for
>>the above paragraph, which is why I normally don't express it openly.
>>Hopefully, it will offer some insight to one person out there.

You have given me some insight Drew. 
Insight into the mind of people living in a completly different world.


Vern Nelson

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:21:50 GMT

lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
: <BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
: 
: >  o  Christian missionaries' tireless campaign to stamp out cannibalism
: >     in  newly discovered territories was effectively a public health
: >     measure that wiped out all kinds weirdo diseases previously unknown
: >     to Europeans.  Particularly harmful it seems, was eating other
: >     people's brains.
: 
: Somehow I doubt this was the reason why they worked to stamp out
: cannibalism. There are some other obvious reasons like "thou shalt not
: kill".
: 

The prohibition against killing has never seemed to stop christians
from going to war against the neighbors.  They just don't eat the foe
after killing him.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  It's NO USE..  I've
Rosemount Inc.                                |gone to ``CLUB MED''!!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Transactional Analysis
Keywords: Psychology, Transactional Analysis
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:34:52 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <17jh6cINN2co@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:

>In article <59927@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:

>> [reference to serious mental problems deleted]

>>Perhaps the best observation on such therapies, from naive volunteer 
>>counselling to the most expensive New York psychoanalysis, is, 
>>"All placebos work equally well." Talking-at-the-patient is then
>>not a science, and only the least expensive form of such
>>therapy should be used. Those therapies which require extensive
>>education in an arcane pseudo-science should be rejected out of 
>>hand.

>I don't think it's quite that simple.  I wouldn't call teaching a placebo,
>yet some aspects of therapy are a matter of teaching the patient to look
>at things in a new way, or teaching new ways of coping with situations.
>If I were looking for a therapist I would hope to find one who is experienced
>and successful with problems like those I have.  I believe it's been
>shown that the results of therapy depend more on the therapist-patient
>relationship than on the theoretical basis used by the therapist; but
>then perhaps therapists tend to self-select the kinds of patients and
>problems where their theories tend to be successful.

Please bear in mind that I am speaking of _serious_ mental problems--
schizophrenia, severe depression, etc. If you suffer from "vague feelings
of unease," "low self-esteem," or other such minor mental problems, do
as you will, so long as you don't use my tax or insurance dollars.

I think that your analogy with teaching is invalid. There are
elements of teaching in almost everything. I'll be glad to teach
you to dowse--I charge $4,000 for a complete one day course. I'm the 
best dowsing teacher in the southeastern US. Are you writing your 
check yet?
 
*For serious mental problems*, it is unclear whether talking-at-the-patient
is good or bad. For the most part, it seems that it can be good. Yes, 
a placebo level effect is going to be enhanced when we have a good relation-
ship between the participants. By all means pick a sympathetic counselor.
But don't pick one who charges *professional* rates, based on many years
of postgraduate education in an arcane science. Or if you do, don't use 
my tax money, etc.
 
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15346 talk.origins:10332
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution and Choice (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:46:56 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@acuson.com ()
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA


In <l9q5mbINNrhm@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
	salem@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM (Bruce Salem[CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>
>	I am really responding to Drew Lawson.
>
>>In <1992Aug25.145508.9362@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>
>>>One of the main reasons for our mortal existence is to have a time to
>>>live by faith and show that we will choose what is right.  Those
>>>choices are growing experiences. 
>
>
>>Sentence #1:  We must follow God's words and choose what he wants.
>>              We MUST do this in order to grow.
>
>
>>>If we are deprived of the opportunity
>>>to choose, we lose our chance to grow.  In that case, we may as well
>>>not have been born.
>
>>Sentence #2:  If God influences our desicion by any action, 
>>              we CANNOT grow.  Our life is deemed worthless.
>
>
>>This paragraph is a contradiction:
>
>>Choose God freely, OR you may as well not have been born. 
>
>>This is not "free will".  This is extortion.  
>
>	Good :-) rejoinder! This guy is afarid of freedom. He cirmscribes
>responsibiliy by creating a contradiction that deprives him of any real
>choices.

I let this pass the first time it came along, but I won't allow my
intent to be twisted repeatedly.

If you will read again what _I_ wrote, I said that we are here to learn
by making choices.  If we do not/cannot make choices we may as well not
have been born.

I did not say we are here to "choose God freely," although that is ONE
of the choices to be made.  Life is full of choices.  If you dispute
that, I wonder what your life is like.

As such, I have presented no contridiction.  If you twist the words
to produce a contradiction, that is your problem.

>	Choice is degrees of freedom in our mental and physical
>situation. We are not constructed to fly, that is we have not evolved
>to fly, but through our understanding of our physical surroundings
>we can fly.

Using the opportunities available which we CHOOSE to exercise.
Exactly.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:41:15 GMT
Reply-To: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <52660@dime.cs.umass.edu> I wrote:
>I hope that you agree that it would not be appropriate
>to say humans go on all four.

Sigh.  Of course, I should have added "when they walk," which is what I
meant, because now someone will inevitably say "Ah, ha!  Babies go on all
four!"  I suppose that's technically correct (if you mean all four limbs),
even if it's not common parlance.


michael@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: macucci@ceg.uiuc.edu (Massimo Macucci)
Subject: Re: Uri Geller's legal tactics
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:46:01 GMT

twlane@nyx.cs.du.edu () writes:

>Several months ago I heard through the grapevine about Mr. Geller's
>attempts to silence James Randi by repeatedly filing lawsuits in every 
>available jurisdiction.  According to my sources this placed a significan
>financial burden on Mr. Randi a legal defense fund was established to
>help him fend off this assault.
>Does anybody out there have any further information about this situation?


>*************************************************************************
>  Todd Lane

>"Questions are a burden to others, answers are a prison for oneself"
>                                --The Prisoner



Yes, there is a fund for Randi's legal expenses. The address is the
following:
 The James Randi Fund
 c/o Robert Steiner, CPA
 P.O. Box 659
 El Cerrito, CA 94530

 The lawsuit by Geller against Randi is still going on. There is a mailing
 list for updates on the situation, but I do not remember how I subscribed,
 now. The mailing list originates from the account  geller-hotline@ssr.com.
					       Massimo Macucci
					       macucci@pimic.iet.unipi.it
					       macucci@gate.spg.uiuc.edu


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15259 talk.origins:10266
From: marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:07:04 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

With regard to use of faith or religious belief to choose beetween
alternatives to explore:

	The scientific method does not (and probably cannot) include 
	intuition.  In most cases I suspect that justifications of 
	alternatives chosen follow are "a posteriori".  

	Let's not question where the intuition _appears_ to come from.
	I would fault a researcher only for sticking with an intuition
	that has failed or cannot be justified, not for the _apparent_
	source of the original intuition.

tom marlowe
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:52:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.151922.5348@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>This is not a subject which I often aproach in an anonymous and hostile
>environment such as Usenet.  But I think that it is needed in this
>discussion.  My assurance of truth (which I hold primarily to have
>personal application) comes from study of the scriptures accompanied by
>pondering and prayer.  This brings the guidance of the Holy Spirit to
>help me to understand and choose what is right.  I also ponder and pray
>about other (non-scriptural) issues to understand how this all applies
>to the rest of my life.

What is your interpretation of Job 12:7-8?  How have you applied it 
personally?

-- Herb Huston
From: allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:51:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: pdxgate.6056

schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:

>slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:
>>The hall included a picture of an astronaut (I forget his name)
>>who proclaims his faith in God and Creation.  

>The astronaut in question is most likely (Edgar?) Mitchell, a
>wacko who spent many of his post-astronaut days in search of
>Noah's ark 

Just want to get the facts straight:  The Astronaut was Col. James Irwin. 
He was involved with the search for Noah's Ark up to his death a few
years ago.  He spent most of his time traveling the world speaking and 
preaching.  His funeral was attended by many of his compatriot astronauts.

allen roy
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: just me
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 18:08:09 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1285@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
<LOTS of stuff elided>
>
>	But is creationism bad science ? I am convinced that one can
>take the exact same set of data that exists now, and by changing the
>fundamental assumptions on which the theory is based, come up with a
>different conclusion. My assertion of this has really sent the people
>who care about this stuff into orbit. But coming from a "soft sciences"
>background as I do, I'm really saying nothing that psychologists,
>sociologists, and political scientists do not have to deal with when
>encountering incomplete and often complex data. Can evolutionary
>biology really be so simple that we can teach it to high school
>students without losing something in the process ?

Absolutely.  Just as we teach math and physics to the same group.

The fields of psychology, sociology and politics are *not* "hard" sciences,
and no practitioner of the above would argue seriously that they were.
For example, there is no good evidence that the mind exists, so any
psychological theories around start out on shaky ground.  They build on
assumptions, as it were.  "This person is sick and exhibiting this behavior:
what caused it?"  The answer could plausibly be chemical changes, physical
injury, delusions, beliefs, stress or lots of other things.  "This stone is
red: what causes it to be red?"  The answer can be reliably limited to a
discussion of the relective properties of the elements found in the stone
(and any other applicable optical effects).  

This is the difference between a soft and a hard science.  Since evolutionary
biology has good, hard evidence - fossils - it cannot be said to be on the
same level of abstraction as, say, psychology.  Fossils are *much* easier to
understand than behavior.  So, evolutionary biology is much more "defensible",
if you will, than the fields you list above.
>
>	I am really bemused by the statement that I'm an ignorant
>historian. Since semantics have been thrown my way, I would simply
>like to point out that the preponderence of evidence for evolution
>does not lie in any written record (that is, after all, what
>history is based upon), but on physical evidence/observation and
>deductive logic. How, then can we justify evolutionary biology as
>a "historical science". Just because something allegedly happened
>in the past does not make it history.

History can mean the study of events in the past, can it not?  Not just
*important* events.

>
>
>	If the natural science community has problems with this,
>I'm sorry. Serves you all right for teaching statistics to 
>historians and philosophers, who then become "social scientists".

Glad to see that in quotes.

>	Bill R.

Feel free to continue this in email, if you wish, Bill.
David Pipes
robear@digex.com is the correct return address
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:06:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug27.030619.8047@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes...
>However, I've been wondering if there is any fundamental reason why
>the traditional binary logic system, of TRUE and FALSE, that evolved
>from the ancient Greeks has to be the only way?

It's not.

>Would it make sense to invent a new multivalued logic, to open up
>the narrow space and discover new things?

It's been done, books and articles have been written on it.  Jan
Lukasiewicz was the first to construct a three-valued logic, I
believe (true, false, indeterminate).  Now there's also fuzzy
logic, which has an infinite number of truth values (real numbers
from 0 to 1).
   I had a file of articles on multivalued logics which I can't
seem to find at the moment, but what stands out in my mind as most
relevant was a paper by W.V. Quine arguing against them (the phrase
"change of logic, change of subject" comes to mind).  If I find
them or find references, I'll post.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:52:52 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <adams.714948366@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras) writes:
|
|>I guess the insects in question just walked differently back then, and
|>it's only been recently that they've smartened up and learned to use all
|>six legs to walk, eh?  Just dragged the other two along, right?  Ayup.
|
|I suppose you've never heard of an idiom?  The Bible uses (just about)
|every literary device there is...
|

Well, *I* have no trouble reading this as an idiom, but then I am not
a biblical literalist.  I am perfectly content to accept that there are
statements in the Bible that have only spiritual truth.

The problem comes in if you try to do a literalism number on the Bible,
like insist that the seven days of creation actually existed outside of
the minds of the authors.   Then such literary devices aren't allowed.
[After all, if literary devices are allowed Genesis 1 could simply be
treated as an allegory].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Stupid Pleadians
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 02:44:28 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Aug23153401@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Rosto
) writes:
>If the Pleadians are so damned smart, why did they permit a large
>wildfire in their neighborhood?  The heat is going to wreck havoc with
>their electronics...
>
If they didn't let a large wildfire in there, there would be a really
**BIG** wildfire there.  Fire load tends to accumulate in forests, if it
don't burn or rot, it just gets bigger.

Big Al.  The Raving Neophyte Zoologist.
>
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Transactional Analysis
Keywords: Psychology, Transactional Analysis
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:06:19 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <iordonez.714613304@academ01> iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
>
>So, is T. A. a valid scientific scientific theory? Or is it another fad?
>I hope to hear some opinions soon.

(Hey!  I was just thinking about T.A. earlier today!  That means I'm psychic,
right?)

The answer to your first question is "no."  None of the popular models of 
personality (which is in itself a metaphysical concept) really have anything 
to do with science.  They may or may not be useful or enlightening or helpful 
to people who want to lead fuller lives, but they are not formulated in such a 
way that they can be tested using scientific methods.  They are really just 
systems of classification and analysis and cannot be called "valid scientific 
theories" any more than the Dewey Decimal System can.

In other words, they are not falsifiable.  It is not possible to determine a
test or observation which will falsify the theory.  Rather, the theory is 
general enough that any observed behavior can be "explained" using the theory.
The only limiting factor is the skill of the explainer.

On the other hand, the effectiveness of such ideas in treating various kinds
of disorders can be tested using scientific methods.  However, it is extremely 
difficult to do so.

Eric Pepke                                     INTERNET: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute  MFENET:   pepke@fsu
Florida State University                       SPAN:     scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052                     BITNET:   pepke@fsu

Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic