HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dir2@gte.com (Dean Radin)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Journal of Scientific Exploration
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:13:50 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories

The JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION publishes peer-reviewed research 
articles and invited essays in areas that do not fit neatly into the 
matrix of present-day science. Now in it's 6th year of publication, this 
quarterly journal provides a professional forum for the presentation, 
scrutiny and criticism of topics falling outside the established 
scientific disciplines. JSE publishes articles both "pro" and "con", 
the only criteria being quality and scholarship. It is the official 
publication of the international Society for Scientific Exploration 
(founded in 1982). For information about the journal, contact:
                        JSE Editorial Office
                        ERL 306
                        Stanford University
                        Stanford, CA 94305
                        FAX: 415-725-2333
                        haisch@flare.stanford.edu

The annual meeting of the SSE this year is at Princeton University in 
early June.  For information about attending the meeting, or about the
scheduled talks, send email to 
           Dr. Roger Nelson at rdnelson@phoenix.princeton.edu

-- Dean Radin, radin@gte.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: books
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 16:12:46 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <z_njx#q.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> We seem to have an interesting dilemma here. The concensus of "womens'
> studies" texts is indeed as he indicates. However, the concensus of
> historians, sociologists, and anthropologists is otherwise. Isn't
> it a pretty paradox when one branch of "knowledge" contradicts
> another? What do you suppose might explain this error? Surely it
> could not be: political agenda (i.e., Lysenkoism)?

	If anything's obvious, it's that there's a political agenda on
_both_ sides of this question. This is typical in the soft sciences,
and not exactly unheard-of in the hard sciences, either.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (a.j.s. nusbacher)
Subject: Re: the myth of jesus
Organization: University of Toronto 
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:16:46 GMT

Anyone interested in the origins of Christianity ought to have a look at

_Paul and the Invention of Christianity_ by Hyam Maccoby.

It is a skeptical treatment of Christ's mission vs. what St. Paul said Christ's
mission was.  He paints Christ as a mainstream Shammaiite pharisee, and Paul as
a sadducee thug who turned Jesus's ideas of political revolution into a Greek
mystery cult.

It's very well written.

Heresy, of course, but very well written.

_____________________________________________________________________________
        Aryk Nusbacher                .. ..       Hart House, 1916
                                      ||_||
          Hart House                  | I |     || ||          || ||  ..    ..
Informal Education in the University  |   |   . ||_||__________||_||  || ___||
                                      | O |___|_|__________________|__| /  \ |
    aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca         |   |       o oo  oo  oo   o      |__| |
                                      |_A_|_______A_oo  oo  oo   A__^^^______|
_____________________________________________________`------------____________
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: I don't know.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:28:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.215657.6121@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>,
kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
> You are taking what I said out of context.
> When a whole line of argument is based on the assumption that no psychic has
> ever won the lottery using his/her powers, then my statements make perfect
> sense. Skeptics who chuckle about the fact that no psychic has won the
> lottery, don't know what they are talking about, because no one really
> knows if anyone has or not.

   I disagree.  Skeptics _do not_ chuckle because "no psychic has won the 
lottery using his or her powers".  They chuckle rather because if 1% of
what psychics that occur in the media claim about their powers is true
they should be able to win the lottery as often as they want.


> They don't know. I don't know.

   I know that the common claims of psychics are wildly overblown.  This
is a very weak statement based on order-of-magnitude type calculations.

> So, using this
> erroneous assumption as some sort of basis for disproving psi is bogus.

   Psi IS bogus.  Almost all claims made by alleged psionics are patently
false.  The PEAR group may have uncovered something that could be called psi;
their work is wildly unlike the standard, bombastic claims in the media.
I refer you to the last sixty issues of the Skeptical Enquirer, should you
desire references...

> That is what I was doing... pointing out a bogus argument. That's all.

   No, your imposing a straw man and then pointing out it is a straw man.
This summer, when I have more time, I'm going to give the PEAR list the
attention I hope it deserves.

> I really don't mind wit if it goes hand in hand with respect for other's
> ideas. I think that the tone of your discussion here
> is exemplary. I enjoy having discussions with people who exchange ideas
> in this manner.

   Great.  I'll try and stay calm :-).

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Why Psychics don't win
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:04:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.173107.7981@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.215551.21876@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> 
>  kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
 
}}I agree with this assessment in general.

}}Specifically, I feel that in the case of psi, many skeptics assume that
}}studies like PEAR are invalid before they have been debunked, and are not
}}basing their judgements on a true assessment of the evidence.
 
}Okay, sure.  I admit that I have not actually seen the PEAR studies or
}know much about them.  I do feel that the skeptics have more or less the
}right idea in this situation though.  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
}admit that PEAR could well be different (it seems to have been approached
}in a different way than most previous tests) forgive me if I don't seem
}enthusiastic.  The best I can offer is that, while I don't believe it
}is valid, I am prepared to be convinced otherwise.

Thanks for saying this. It is not my intention to label psi skeptics as
different than others. Psi proponents suffer from the same maladies of
prejudgement. Basically we are all the same. We all often argue
with seemingly good logic and intent. The difference is we start from
different base assumptions.

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8061 rec.music.classical:5792
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Album by bizzare British spiritualist
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:44:20 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr13.161316.7018@psych.toronto.edu> 
stephan@psych.toronto.edu (Stephan Hamann) writes:

> I've been going crazy trying to find information on a bizzare British
>lady spiritualist who claims that she communicates with long-dead composers.
>Apparently she goes into a trance and writes down music by a form of
>automatic writing, producing "Mozart" and "Beethoven" sonatas, "Chopin"
>mazurkas, etc., quickly and effortlessly. 

Rosemary Brown.  Quickly, effortlessly, and pretty much lacking in
inspiration, too.  Pastiche is not as hard as you might imagine.

> I don't know her name, but I do know that a) she is a decent amateur
>pianist who at one time performed these dictations in public, and b) that
>she was in the news much more in the 1960s and '70s than now. I read about
>her once somewhere, and a friend tells me that she actually did an album.
>Any info on this colorful woman or her album would be appreciated!

If there was an album, it's almost certainly out of print.  This
particular bit of silliness died down long ago.

Roger
From: proterin@nmt.edu (Paul Rotering)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: LaserVision Glasses Stopped
Keywords: LaserVision
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:47:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

In article <6bxjgyg.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>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.  

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

I've seen only a bit of one of the infomercials for LaserVision 
glasses, so this may not be completely accurate.  

Laservision glasses are regular cheapo frames with thin metal "lenses."
The lenses have a series of horizontal rows of holes punched in them.
Supposedly they made your vision clearer and perhaps even corrected 
minor visual problems.

The only reason they called the things "Laser"vision was because the
holes are allegedly made with lasers - rather like calling a roll of
toilet paper a hazardous waste disposal kit......













>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Notes on Evolution, Mars and Religion
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:36:23 GMT

   The Horta appeared in the episode "Devil in the Dark".  For other
speculation see also "Uller Uprising" by H. Beam Piper (sillicon evolved from
carbon), "The Space Angels" by James Blish (pure energy), "Great Sky
River/Tides of Light" by Gregory Benford (machine intellegence).

   Some scientific references sure would be nice, but the best I can do is
Proceedings of the I&IInd Conference on Artificial Life.

-----------------------------From Alife Digest------------------------------

                          Artificial Life II

                        Proceedings Available

The proceedings of the Second Artificial Life Workshop (Feb. 1990) are out 
and available from Addison Wesley.  Here is the ordering information:

Toll free order number:   1-800-447-2226.
   
Title:	   "Artificial Life II"

Editors:   Christopher G. Langton, Charles E. Taylor, J. Doyne Farmer,
           and Steen Rasmussen.

These proceedings are volume 10 in AW's series: Santa Fe Institute Studies 
in the Sciences of Complexity

There is also a Video Proceedings of the second workshop available, which 
can be purchased separately or "bundled" with a paperback copy of the 
proceedings and a copy of the poster for the Artificial Life II Workshop. 

The ISBN #'s and approximate prices for the various Alife II proceedings are:

           Paperback ( ~ $35)  ISBN 0-201-52571-2
           Hardcover ( ~ $50)  ISBN 0-201-52570-4
           Video     ( ~ $45)  ISBN 0-201-55492-5
           Bundle    ( ~ $65)  ISBN 0-201-55493-3
           
The 5-digit segments of these ISBN numbers are AW's internal order codes.  

 
Contributors to the proceedings, and those who paid the registration fee 
for the workshop, will be receiving copies in the mail shortly. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Psychics in Casinos
Organization: Indiana University
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:50:31 -0500

In article <23008@goofy.Apple.COM>, haynes@apple.com (Charles Haynes) writes:
> In article <1992Apr2.004846.635@ims.com>, chapman@ims.com (Dave Chapman) writes:
>>
>> It seems to me that even a small population of psychics would quickly put all of
>> the casinoes out of business. Oops, I forgot, the psychics own the casinoes.
>
> You think Casinos "play fair" do you? They tend to be quite empirical. Winning
> consistently is a priori evidence that you are cheating, and Nevada State Law
> allows Nevada casinos to eject cheaters and blacklist them. They don't need to
> show *how* you were cheating.
>
> I assume similar mechanisms exist in other casinos. Perhaps less formal, but
> still effective I'd bet.

Casinos discourage card-counters in blackjack and "system" players because
they are distracting and boring.  It would be interesting to find out how many
innocent gamblers have been blacklisted this way.  Not many, I'd bet.  Besides,
if the casinos are discriminating against psychics, why don't they switch to
lotteries or horseracing?
--
James Harvey
harvey@iupui.edu (preferred) or harvey@indiana.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8160 soc.men:8553
From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men
Subject: Re: Peace-loving Paradise of the Goddess
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:47:00 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <d!1jn1n.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.020715.24154@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>As I said, Loren would have us believe that the Peace-Loving feminists of
>the ancient Goddess cultures only practiced human sacrifice under
>extreme duress, like when a recovering alcoholic falls off the wagon.
>...
>
>In any case, contemporary Horrid Patriarchal societies are
>definitely unlike the Goddess-worshippers in respect to human sacrifice,
>in having eliminated it! 
>-- 
>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

Not really!  We have simply objectified it.  Go into your nearest
Catholic church and look at the altar.  What do you see?  That looks
an awful lot like a human sacrifice to me.  The Patriarchal culture
also objectifies cannibalism in the form of the Holy Eucharist.

We regularly sacrifice our best and brightest young men to the
through war to the god of profit.

We also enjoy objectified spectacles of unnecessary conflict and/or
pain.  The Romans had their gladiators and circuses.  We have our
Terminator movies and pro football/wrestling.  At least when a person's
life was sacrificed, it was seen as _necessary._  The tormented person's
pain wasn't disdained the way that of a current victim of political
torture is now.  They may have been bloodthirsty, but I doubt
that they could have been any more venal than we are now.

The only difference between human sacrifice then and now is that
the Christians have perfected it, made it more efficient, taken
the blood out of it.  We only had to sacrifice _one_ man, provided
of course, that he was perfect.  So we retain the memory of that
perfect sacrifice, which forms the basis of our religiuos culture.
We drink his blood and eat his flesh, and in so doing, become one
with the God who demanded either his death, or that of us all.

So, let's not be so quick to congratulate ourselves.  Perhaps
the myth of the Lost Paradise of the Goddess is just that, a myth.
However, in that it serves as a metaphor for something that we
actually _could_ create, it shouldn't be disdained or dismissed.
I certainly wouldn't want to treat _your_ aspirations for a better
life that way--even if they happened to seem silly or outlandish
to me.

-r
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mvp@hsv3.uucp (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorum
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:26:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.004108.2697@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>What's tantalizing about FLT is this fabled note that Fermat wrote before
>he died saying that he found an "elegant proof."
>
>There are two possibilities:

Actually, many more than that...

The most amazing thing to me is that the problem remains so
intractable.  That of all the mathematical conjectures that Fermat
could have picked to write in the margin of his book, he picked one
that even today we have been unable to (1) prove, (2) disprove, or
(3) prove that it can't be proved, is pretty amazing.  If it had
been proved, disproved, or proved insoluble, Fermat's last
theorem would have been mostly forgotten.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming
Headland Technology    | mob pounding on a greasy spot on the pavement,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com      | where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.
...ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: books
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:46:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <wTguiB1w164w@cellar.org>, revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes...
>        The next CSICOP conference is actually titled "Fairness, Fraud and 
>Feminism: Culture Confronts Science," and I have a sad feeling that CSICOP 
>will find itself wedded to a reactionary, authoritarian point of view that is 
>fundamentally anti-intellectual. I might be wrong-- my expectations on 
>theanimal rights panel were certainly off the mark-- but after seeing the 
>pathetic, let-ME-set-this-foolish-woman-straight strutting on this newsgroup, 
>I get the strong feeling that certain individuals aren't happy unless they 
>can Soundly Thrash these infidels with the full weight of CSICOP.

I suspect you will be wrong, based on the list of who will be on the panels
(e.g., Carol Tavris, author of _The Mismeasure of Woman_).

>Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorum
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:59:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.013437.15508@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.212630.10438@hsv3.uucp> 
>   mvp@hsv3.uucp (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.004108.2697@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> 
>>  dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>What's tantalizing about FLT is this fabled note that Fermat wrote before
>>>he died saying that he found an "elegant proof."
>>>
>>>There are two possibilities:
>>
>>Actually, many more than that...
>>
>>The most amazing thing to me is that the problem remains so
>>intractable.  That of all the mathematical conjectures that Fermat
>>could have picked to write in the margin of his book, he picked one
>>that even today we have been unable to (1) prove, (2) disprove, or
>>(3) prove that it can't be proved, is pretty amazing.  If it had
>>been proved, disproved, or proved insoluble, Fermat's last
>>theorem would have been mostly forgotten.
> 
> I don't think it is possible to prove FLT insoluble, although that doesn't
> keep it from *being* insoluble.

   It is possible to prove some problems insoluable; the cardinality of the
set of real numbers is provably impossible to compute via forcing, a horrible
triumph of set theory.  Such incomputables are called "independent", which
means independent of the axioms of set theory.

   It may well be the truth or falsity of Fermats Last _Conjecture_ is 
dependent on the model of the integers used, rather than true (or false)
for all models. 

> 
>>Mike Van Pelt          | It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming
> 
> C Frog

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: v070qg5d@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric M Chmiel)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why Psychics don't win
Date: 14 Apr 92 06:36:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>(Dave Kraus) writes...

>Also, don't ignore the fact that "I don't know" is the correct answer to
>many questions that individuals use subjective feelings to answer.
> 

   Science is not just a body of accumulated logic, but a method of finding
things out based on EVIDENCE.  While it may be true that "I don't know" is
the correct answer to some questions individuals use subjective feelings to
answer, in the case of psi and the like, skeptics don't answer based on
subjective feelings.  They answer based on EVIDENCE.  The correct answer in this
case, then, is "I don't know 100% for sure, but BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE there
doesn't appear to be anything partiularly onvincing in favor of the existence
of psi and the like."
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8015 talk.religion.misc:6715
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolution AND or OF God??
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:48:49 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <92104.121619U21192@uicvm.uic.edu> U21192@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>
> Hello (t)here!!
[very long exposition mostly deleted]
>What IF, we trully HAVE CREATED an external objective outside representative
>(call it God in the making) that starts with our subjective suppositions,
>and ends up  "existing" somewhere out there.

This idea has been worked out by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin S.J.,
in his book "The Phenomenon of Man" (Teilhard died in 1955, and the book
was, I believe posthumously published). 
Teilhard explains his more or less mystic vision as follows.
Each piece of matter has a spiritual side and a material side. 
The spiritual side becomes more and more clear when the matter becomes
more complex organised.  In the history of earth there are a few 
importnat moments: the beginning of life, the beginning of human life,
and the formation of point Omega.  This point Omega is formed as a result 
of convergent evolution (evolution divergent until now).  Omega transcends
space and time and actually directs evolution. Hence, we are pulled 
towards Omega, in a sense. 
In essence this is a mystic vision: Omega=God=Everything in everybody=Love,
etc.  In "The divine Milieu" Teilhard makes more clear how he feels that
the influence of `God' pervades his whole life and the whole world.

It has been observed that Teilhard did not have anything in the manner 
of experimental data to back up his grandiose view.  Teilhard was quite
fashionable in the 60's. 

> Ramanujan claimed that "goddess Kali" gave him some of his theorems, while

Beg you pardon. It was Namagiri, one of the consorts of (I believe)
Shiva. 

JWN