HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v070qg5d@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric M Chmiel)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I don't know.
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr8.170554.7595@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes...
>In article <1992Apr7.092825@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
> 
>I understand what you are saying here. Sure, it is easy for me to say,
>"How do you know that no one has used their psychic powers to win a lottery?"
>I didn't supply any proof that a psychic had used psi to win the lottery.
>But, no one has supplied proof that a psychic hasn't used their powers
>to win the lottery either. Just because they can't supply such proof
>doesn't make this fact any less important. Some questions cannot be
>disproven. This is the nature of reality. 

     You are correct in saying some questions cannot be disproven.  In fact,
I don't have to tell you it is categorically impossible to so.  If I tell you
I am Jesus Christ, it will be categorically impossible for you to prove that
I'm not, but the only evidence in favor of me being Christ is that I will have
told you so.  Weak evidence indeed.  The only real evidence for PSI is that 
some people have said it exists.  Again, weak evidence indeed.  There has 
never been much in the way of good, reputable laboratory proof.  I can't prove 
that PSI doesn't exist, but the evidence that it does is extremely weak, and
it is on the basis of that evidence that skeptics make their decision.
> 
>This is why I have never
>understood the atheistic viewpoint. There is no way an atheist could
>have reached his viewpoint based on any real knowledge. The atheist's
>viewpoint is based on a lack of knowledge (If I can't see it, it
>doesn't exist). The only really correct viewpoint in this case is
>agnostic (I don't know).
> 
    Does it really make sense to say "I can't see it, or any real evidence of 
it, but I still think it exists"?  That is the non-atheistic point-of-view.
It makes no sense.  If you ask me to accept things on faith without any real
evidence, then why shouldn't you believe me when I tell you that I have the
ability to make myself grow to 145 ft. tall by clicking my heels together?  
Aren't you going to ask me to prove it?  If you want me to believe in PSI, God
and all other related stuff, I want you to prove it.  Faith isn't good enough
because that would mean I should believe EVERYTHING I ever hear, because after
all if I don't ask for proof I have no way to differentiate between fantasy
and reality.

                                                _E. Chmiel_
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Wake of the Goddesses (OH NO!)
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:42:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr16.221333.6044@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes...
>	Some feminists do relish what some would interpret as
>pornography; have you ever heard of the performance artist Carolee
>Schneemann? (No, she never get into trouble with the NEA) I've seen a
>picture of her bare naked, fully exposed, with some snakes crawling
>over her. Not surprisingly, she identifies a bit with the Minoan Snake
>Goddess.

Carolee Schneemann and a number of other women with some similar views
on pornography (including some who *have* gotten into trouble with the
NEA) are interviewed (with photos) in Re/Search's publication _Angry
Women_.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolution and God
From: geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz (Geoff McCaughan)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:24:23   M
Organization: The Equinox Network CHCH NZ (Node SATORI)
Keywords: Evolution,proof

K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) writes:

> 3) Evolution and adaptation within species is not under dispute. Iunderstood
> the question to refer to evolution from one species into another. I believe
> the absence of intermediate forms is one reason why the theory remains an
> hypothesis.

You believe wrong. The "absence of intermediate forms" is a chestnut
often trotted out in arguments against evolution. *All* life forms are
"intermediate" biology is replete with examples [two off the top of my
head, the R-complex in the human brain, and the appendix].

Lack of "proof" for evolutionary theory says more about the nature of
proof than the nature of the theory. Pick any theory for the origin of
species, figure out a way to prove it. Tricky eh?

| 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?"
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: misc
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:14:37 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <72869@netnews.upenn.edu> karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna) writes:
>The second issue you discuss is how life could have occurred in the first
>place, because if increasing entropy.  The answer is identical: the increase
>in organization required for molecules to increase in complexity until they
>become "life" is "powered" by the Sun, by various forms of radiation, and
>stuff like that.  It's essentially the same situation as the first issue
>you mentioned.
>
I was trying to explain why the "life v. disorder" chatter keeps recurring to
annoy us all.

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

The issue of life as it is NOW, is not the issue. Life today obviously
sustains, despite tendency for disorder, as we have a source of energy from
the sun. No problem.

This standard answer, however, does not satisfy those who are talking about
the very START of life. This is a second and separate issue.

Life NOW, is obviously self-sustaining. Life at the START is not
obviously self-sustaining.

When a semblance of life happens by chance out of some chaotic primordal
stew, it has to somehow sustain itself *at that instant* against the
prevailing disorder.

If you stand by a beach long enough, you may see pretty patterns in the
sand appear by chance. However, because the environment is harsh, the
wind blows away the patterns. The patterns are only a transitory form
of order, within the disorder. They do not sustain themselves.

So the point that needs to be answered to stop people bringing up this
subject over and over again is:

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


I don't pretend to know the answer. But if someone does then they can put
finally put the matter to rest.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: NP-Hard problems
Keywords: NP-Hard, test, clairvoyance
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:16:12 GMT

In article <5560@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx>, pl160988@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan
Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
> 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.

   Only if you are a theoretical computer scientist.  If one were attempting
to do quantatative measurements of psychic ability, the parallelism divisor
is not "just a conmstant" but is rather "a critical constant".

> 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).

   This is the definition of hardness that ignores setup and overhead, not
useful for a real test.

> 
> 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.

   Again, you are using theoretical results in an inappropriate way.  The
halting problem _is_ solvable by careful analysis for many _finite_ sets of
programs.  You can't test a psychic's performance on an asymptotic or global
property, you have to accept performance on a finite and therefore exceptional
set.

   If the psychic solves the halting problem for a program P and says "P
never halts" how do you check his veracity?  :) 

> 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.

   Yeah, I agree.

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

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: lhbran@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Historical Jesus
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:34:35 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

The proper question is "What are you going to do about my assertion that Jesus
died for you?"  My answer is "nothing" because I don't believe your assertion
which implies that only Jesus died for me.  Many persons have lost their lives
in the preparation of the world in which I live.  I think that the assertion
that only one of these lives is important is blasphemy.  What I do about the
evil of history is to try not to repeat it.  That is just about all any of us
can do.

Larry Brannigan
St. Louis, Mo.
From: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: misc
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:50:49 GMT
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Apr6.045504.7928@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> 
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.095445.3924@bb1t.monsanto.com> 
lhbran@bb1t.monsanto.com writes:
> >
> >       The thermodynamic argument for creationism is bogus, bogus, 
bogus.
> >This argument has been "put down" by many scientists over the past 
fifteen
> >years.  Why it keeps raising its silly head is mysterious.
> 
> The reason it keeps raising its ugly head is simple. It's because there 
are
> two issues and only one issue has ever been addressed.
> 
> The issue that has been addresed is that NOW life is HERE there is no
> contradiction between entropy and biological systems, as energy is
> being soaked up from the sun. And I think everbody accepts this.
> 
> The issue that has not been addressed is the STARTING of life, in a
> universe of increasing entropy. For this you have to postulate some
> sort of "bootstrapping" action.

Others have talked about various hypotheses of the origin of life that 
clearly do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

However, you are making a more basic error than this: you are confusing 
evolution with abiogenesis.  The theory of evolution in and of itself says 
nothing whatsoever about the origin of the first living organism.  It only 
deals with the changes and development of organisms and populations.  
Finding fault with evolution because it doesn't explain the origin of life 
is like saying that automobiles are bad because they are not very 
nutritious.

Further, the creationists are most emphatically NOT claiming that god 
created the first double helix and the rest has been evolution.  Their 
political actions are NOT directed toward getting schools to teach 
creationism instead of abiogenesis (I don't think that there are any 
schools that teach abiogenesis; the field is still too open.)  They are 
trying to get schools to teach that all living things were created by god 
in one swell foop and didn't change much at all over the years.  The 
abiogenesis question really doesn't have even the slightest to do with 
this.

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
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Utts paper (part 2 of 3)
Keywords: PSI experiments, meta-analysis
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:46:45 GMT

Part 2: Data

The Utts paper  ("Statistical Science", Nov 91.) gives an overview of:

  1. Meta-analysis of all known psi ganzfeld experiments
     (by Honorton and Hyman; 34 studies, number of trials
     not mentioned)
  2. Comments on 1. (by Rosenthal)
  3. Improved (automated) ganzfeld experiments made by Honorton
     et al. (1 study, 355 trials)

  4. Meta-analysis of precognition experiments (by Honorton and
     Ferrari; 309 studies, 2,000,000 trials)

  5. Meta-analysis of attempts to influence random physical
     systems (by Radin and Nelson; 832 studies)
  6. Meta-analysis of attempts to influence dice (by Radin and
     Ferrari; 148 studies)

  7. Meta-analysis to examine the relationship between extroversion
     and ESP performance (60 studies)

Several comments are included:
  by J. Bayarri and James Berger (statisticians)
  by Ree Dawson (statistician)
  by Persi Diaconis (mathematician, skeptic)
  by Joel B. Greenhouse (statistician)
  by Ray Hyman (psychologist, skeptic)
  by Robert L. Morris (parapsychologist)
  by Frederick Mosteller (statistician)
followed by Utts' rejoinder.

Short explanation of terms, in my words:

Meta-analysis means that you take a lot of data from different
experiments made by different people, judge their quality, count
significant and nonsignificant studies, and test correlations,
e.g. between experiment quality and measured effect size (ES).

Psi ganzfeld experiments look like this:  A computer program
chooses randomly a target out of a pool, where targets are
arranged in packets of four.  The targets are scenes from movies,
cartoons, photographs, works of art, etc.
A person, the sender, examines the target.
Another person in another room, the receiver, tries to describe
the target.
A judge (can be identical with the receiver) looks at the packet
of four which contains the target and picks the object which
fits the description best.
If there is no psi, and there is no possibility to cheat, the
target should be picked in 25% of all cases.

-- 
-Caddy--(thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany)-----
The question of whether the electron is a wave or a particle
has a clear and definite answer:No.
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Another Strange Creature Sighting?
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:51:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <22766@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>I recently heard some vague talk about a new (to me, anyway) creature 
>that supposedly roams around Minnisota or Michigan or someplace around there.
>I can't recall the name, but got the impression that it was along the lines
>of a Bigfoot or Yeti kind of story.  Can anyone figure out what I'm talking


Monster afficinados will tell you that Bigfoot is supposed to exist many
places other than the forests of the Pacific Northwest. In fact, there
are allegedly Bigfoot sightings in every state (I'm not absolutely sure
if they mean to include Hawaii, but then why should I assume any limits
to BF's swimming abilities?). For a number of years there has been a
major Bigfoot "flap" in central Ohio, with organizations set up to
investigate these acounts. Apparently BF hides under the cornstalks,
in ditches, or other inaccessible places during the day. No matter where
you are, you can find Bigfoot, if you only open your heart to him.......

-- 
  
        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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: The Nazca "Airfields"?
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:30:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.093700.8306@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) 
writes in part:
|> 
|> 	A curious thought occurs to me about the Nazca "airfields".
|> They don't look much like "real" airfields. Every one that I have ever
|> seen has at least one paved runway with a paved parking area nearby.
|> The usual surface, at least for American commercial airports, is
|> concrete. There are usually also markings on all these surfaces to
|> help the pilot out, such as a centerline on the runway. There is
|> almost always additional equipment, such as runway lights and radar
|> sets, not to mention a control tower. Where is all this equipment?
  [and lots of other stuff about how stupid the whole idea is]
|> /Loren
I think the age of the chariots stuff is showing.  One writeup I saw
showed the soure of the "air fields"--a black and white photo of 
a WWII airfield (probably a grass field in england) which looks
remarkably similar to the black and white photo of the knee of 
a nazca bird.  Unfortunately, today's readers' store of images
doesn't have so many WWII era B&W photos anymore, so the juxta-position
breaks down.

Remember, the charioteer's never actually WENT to Peru (so far as I know).  
The books are built out of photo archives, imagination, and chutzpah (however 
you spell that).

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8019 talk.religion.misc:6730
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Gellers Deposition
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:24:34 GMT

In article <ULF.92Apr9104844@napoleon.c3consult.comm.se>, ulf@napoleon.c3consult.comm.se (Ulf Lagerstedt) writes:
>
>I have read a few articles referring to a "deposition" made by Uri Geller, 
>and I assume it is some kind of controlled test of Geller's claimed psychic
>or predictive powers. Could someone provide more information about what the 
>deposition actually is, and what it is supposed to predict? When will the 
>issue be resolved? 

A deposition is simply a sworn statement taken in preparation for a court case.
Geller is due to be deposed starting next Thursday.  Randi has, if I recall
correctly, indicated that he'll ask Geller to demonstrate proof of his alleged
psychic abilities during the deposition, but that he expects Geller to refuse
to do so.  As I understand it, the judge trying the case has indicated that for
Geller to prevail, he WILL be required, during the trial, to prove his alleged
abilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Why Psychics don't win
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:48:45 GMT

In article <881277m.111.703451721@ace.acadiau.ca> 
  881277m@ace.acadiau.ca (WALLACE MCLEAN) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.173107.7981@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
  amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>
>>Every time before, when someone has
>>popped up and said, here is convincing evidence for PSI, *every single time*,
>>it has proven to be either a deliberate or unconscious fraud.  While I
>							^^^^^
>isn't a fraud by definition  deliberate?

Okay, so pick a different word.  What I meant was that every experiment that
I have seen proved to be invalid for some reason.  The researchers either
deliberatly or unconsciously altered their results.

C Frog 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Correcting past injustices  [survey result and comments]
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:11:43 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Apr7090049@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>The full results of the survey are given below.  In summary, there
>were 15 responses, 7 said to pick randomly from the set of all
>applicants, 4 said to pick from the under-represented group and 4
>responses are too complex to neatly categorize.
>
>My first comment is that it is interesting that such a large
>percentage of the responses fell into two clearly defined categories,
>since no answer was suggested.

Not in your question, but don't forget the amount of print this question has
seen for each of the last several years as the President and the Congress
debate the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: LaserVision Glasses Stopped
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 21:35:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Keywords: LaserVision 

In article <rodger.702928799@cadence.com> rodger@Cadence.COM (Rodger Hughes) writes:
>Just an update on the LaserVision Glasses.  Last night on the
>CNBC Network David Horowitz reported that the US Postal Inspector asked
>for an recieved a federal court order stopping the distribution for money
>of LaserVision Glasses.  Basically these glasses are just a scam (and an
>old one at that.)  Unfortunately these glasses are sold under many

What are "laser vision" glasses supposed to do? Does it give you X-ray
vision like Superman, or something?
-- 
  
        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