HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Uri's Magic
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:13:51 GMT

In article <1goa8rINNik@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <3062@israel.nysernet.org>, warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:
>=In <gdavis.723949216@griffin> gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes:
>=
>=> If Uri Geller is the psychic he professes,why doesn't NASA hire him
>=>immediately to unstick Galleo's main antenna before it gets out of
>=>range?

And speaking of Geller, most of his ridiculous lawsuits against people
who asserted that he does tricks, not "real magic" have been thrwon
out of court recently.  But James Randi is still suffering
financial-legal impoverishment in his defense against Geller's
malicious suits, and I hope a few more of ye who believe in the right
to public skepticism might support him via checks payable to The James
Randi Fund                
		c/o Robert Steiner, CPA
		P.O. Box 659
		El Cerrito, CA 94530

Marvin Minsky

.
From: qsi@contrast.wlink.nl (Peter Kocourek)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Info wanted on Halton Arp
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:21:22

Hi!

In a recent discussion, someone mentioned to me a certain guy named Halton
Arp, who supposedly has "disproven the Big Bang" theory, by showing that
there are flows of matter between quasars and galaxies, with the
implication that the quasars aren't as far away as thought. He even is
supposed to have "photographs" proving this. It would seem to me, without
knowing anything further about this, that this is just a misinterpretation
of optically close objects. Does anyone know more about (the refutation
of) Halton Arp's theories?

Thanks for your help!


YHS:QSI!
 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Uri's Magic
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:59:48 GMT

In article <bgm21+r@rpi.edu> gallas2@rpi.edu writes:
>In article <3062@israel.nysernet.org>, warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:
>|>     "They invited me to come quickly to NASA's control center.  They have
>|>     a problem with the space probe Galileo, which was sent to Jupiter.  It
>|>     cost the a lot of money, has already traveled millions of kilometers,
>|>     but its antenna has not opened.  They called me, and I will try to
>|>     help them.  I will stand in the control center, I will concentrate,
>|>     and by means of my mental power, I will try to open the antenna.

>I really hope this isn't true.  I have never been one to underestimate the
>stupidity of a Congresscritter, but this is too much.  If one of the senators
>on the Senate S&T Committee believes in Uri Geller, I can understand why NASA
>has so much trouble...How can you expect to ask for more funding for your 
>research when the Congresscritter thinks you can just call in a "psychic" to
>solve the problem for you.  Can anybody flatly deny this article and save my
>faith in my country?

I don't know, but the antenna is still stuck. Bend it, Uri, bend it!



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


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

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 17:04 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec19.192457.26807@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes...
>In article <NICHAEL.92Dec18095658@kariba.bbn.com> ncramer@bbn.com writes:
>>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>The authors of the various synoptic Gospels _aren't_ simply telling
>>the same the story.  They are by and large, in detail, using the _same
>>words_.  Moreover, where they vary from each other --including the
>>introduction and exclusion of specific materials-- it is done in a
>>consistent and clear manner.
> 
>1) I never said that they were independent sources.  I only
>disputed if they were copying from each other, or a common source
>(ever hear of Q?)

Q is a hypothetical document used to explain the common material between
Matthew and Luke which isn't in Mark.  Those who believe in Q still
believe that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark, they just think
that they also copied from Q.

>2) I think you exagerate a bit.  Yes, the passages are similar but
>I don't think a "diff" of the synoptic gospels will be very kind
>as you seem to imply.  As I said, IMO it is more accurate to think
>of them based off of a common source or working document.

Have you compared the Greek?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21426 alt.folklore.urban:31373 alt.atheism:23812 alt.feminism:6124
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban,alt.atheism,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Ritual Abuse Taskforce Alleges Poisoning
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:47:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Dec16.174708.10837
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1glt0rINN970@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>=
>=>Task force member Catherine A. Gould, a clinical psychologist, claimed
>=>she was poisoned after she raised the matter at the March board meeting.
>=>She said her blurred vision and failed memory weren't psychosomatic, but
>=>she admitted she never visited a doctor to be tested for the pesticide.
>=>
>
>More than that, they were diagnosed by psychologists and chiropractors, without
>any laboratory tests whatever, as having been poisoned with pesticides.

I'd like to find out more about this - it sounds marvellous! What is the
source for this? I suspect that the chiropractors may have performed
their OWN "laboratory tests": something like "See how easy it is to
pull down their arm? They MUST have been poisoned!!!!!!"


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


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

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Need Help on ALIENS stuff!!
Keywords: aliens
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:23:42 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting vinch@iastate.edu (The Doomsday) in article <vinch.724141780@vincent2.iastate.edu>:

>  The problem is I must be on the contra side of the existence of 
>  extraterrestrial life....

>  I am against the existence of extraterrestrial life....
>  It is tough, huh???

Tough?  Impossible.  The sheer number of star systems in the Universe
indicates that if the probability of a given star system supporting life
is, say, one in a billion billion, then there are countless planets out
there with alien life on them.  Read "Extraterrestrial Civilizations" by
Isaac Asimov.

Now, if you mean flying saucers playing silly buggers with the US
Government, that's a little easier...
  __                                _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul."  \X/
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:01:15 GMT
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo

In article <1glmamINN970@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.165647.1043@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>>It seems to me that the more important idea to focus on is the way in which
>>a homeopathic substance theoretically remedies an ailment. If the substance
>>irritates the body into defending itself, and thus indirectly attacking
>>the ailment, the dilution strength should only be considered when insuring
>>that the substance is weak enough not to cause the patient problems. It
>>seems that dilution strengths would vary widely depending on the substance.
>
>Er, Dave?  If the patient is ALREADY ill, don't you think that the illness
>itself would have a better chance of "irritat[ing] the body into defending
>itself" than perhaps a few molecules known to cause "similar" symptoms if
>ingested in massive doses?

Er, Carl? (just thought I'd go with the flow)
It might be possible that an irritation of a slightly different nature than
the disease may produce a different response from the body. This combined
response produced by the bodies natural defenses and the homeopathic
substance may be more effective.

I do however have trouble with the idea that an extremely diluted substance
could have any effect. My interest lies in substances with dilutions of
reasonable strengths. I have been trying to determine if the definition
of homeopathic includes specific numbers on dilution strengths. Also,
I would be interested to know if modern homeopaths are going with higher
strength substances these days than what has been used historically.

In short, the idea of homeopathic response is an interesting possibility
to me. Dilution strengths of "a few molecules" do seem absurd, hence my
interest in higher strength remedies.

---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:56:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: donner.1992Dec14.165647.1043
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo

In article <Bz2MyD.Fqq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Nash) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.172102.6968@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>
>>It seems to me that the use of vaccines is very similar. You inject an
>>irritant similar to what you are vaccinating against. The body builds
>>up antibodies to that irritant, which allows it to fight off the
>>disease being protected against. The difference being that vaccines
>>are taken before the fact.
>
>Vaccines generally also contain more than one molecule of antigen per 
>1000 L or so of vaccine.
>
>>
>>Is it possible that homeopathic remedies cause the body to react to protect
>>itself against the remedy, and in doing so actually attack the problem
>>being remedied? Sounds plausible to me. I'm not saying I'm totally sold
>
>Possibly conceivable if there were, in fact, any molecules of the homeopathic
>remedy left in the preparation after the usual dilutions.
>Seriously, homeopathy is sort of like the idea that you can cure all the
>headache sufferers in a city by tossing two aspirin in the water supply.

Is there actually some guidleline that states that in order to be considered
homeopathic, a substance must be diluted to a strength of x%? If so,
what is x? Does anybody know?

Arnica is prescribed by homeopathics as a homeopathic substance and is diluted
to a solution of 8% (external form).

It seems to me that the more important idea to focus on is the way in which
a homeopathic substance theoretically remedies an ailment. If the substance
irritates the body into defending itself, and thus indirectly attacking
the ailment, the dilution strength should only be considered when insuring
that the substance is weak enough not to cause the patient problems. It
seems that dilution strengths would vary widely depending on the substance.




---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Need Help on ALIENS stuff!!
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:14:46 GMT

vinch@iastate.edu (The Doomsday) writes:
:   I was to write an argumentative paper about aliens.
:   The problem is I must be on the contra side of the existence of 
:   extraterrestrial life....
[...]
:   I need your help by Sunday night (Dec 13)
:   I am desperate..please please help me...

Well, I missed the deadline (I usually do, just ask my boss) but as
far as I can see, the only valid argument against ET life is:

	"We haven't found any yet."

Of course, you'll need to figure out a way to say that in 2,000 words.

It's pretty lame to make somebody write a paper arguing that X doesn't
exist anywhere else in the universe when we can point to one place
where it does exist.  What class is this for, anyway?

I suppose if you do a good job on this sort of thing, you could have a
good career in marketing ahead of you: "There are 87 other brands of
widgets that are exactly the same as ours, but ours is special
because..."

It would be more interesting to argue that life can't exist anywhere,
period.  Which, now that I think about it, is how people try to prove
the existence of god.

Happy Solstice,

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I am having fun!!!
Rosemount Inc.                                |
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:19:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.172102.6968@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>It seems to me that the use of vaccines is very similar. You inject an
>irritant similar to what you are vaccinating against. The body builds
>up antibodies to that irritant, which allows it to fight off the
>disease being protected against. The difference being that vaccines
>are taken before the fact.

And another difference is that with vaccines the irritant is really
similar (as in: closely related), whereas with homeopathy the similarity is
often only in the head of Hahnemann (as in: loose association).

It's fine with me if mistletoe, for example, is good against cancer (I don't
know if it is) but if homeopaths give the reason for it as "mistletoe is a
parasite, and cancer is also sort of parasite", that's pure quackery.
It's the analogy magic of the shaman: if you want rain, spill a pail of water.

But in homeopathy, the magic is mixed with what looks like science.  A simple
formula is alleged to describe the phenomenon: the strength of the medicament
is proportional to the negative logarithm of the concentration.  One thinks
of basic physics: ah, an exponential law, that's what we see everywhere;
sounds plausible... But medicine is not basic physics.  This is like using
a corkscrew to chop wood, but it is quite common.  Fliess' biorhythms and
astrology do the same thing: pressing complex things in simple number
schemes.  "It worked in physics, why not here?" they seem to think.  And
if one objects with logical arguments, they say that science is not
applicable here.  They should have given some thought to applicability
before.

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
"Every three months I tell all of the new recruits that they are supposed to
stand here and not there to get their uniforms, but they just don't learn!"
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21524 alt.paranormal:2663 alt.news-media:1691 talk.bizarre:42453
From: inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.news-media,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV on January Sabattical - Thursdays CBS News Za
Date: 19 Dec 92 07:00:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: tc.1992Dec19.070031.7196
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

Poem found in rec.autos.antique:

> Hey Michael Myjak
> 
> I tried to email you but it bounced
> 
> if this will work??????? I don't know  sure you live in florida and
> I am,allthe way up in maryland how can we do this?? UPS the parts
> right now the car in under a cover at my parents house with the battery
> out of it waiting for me to have something done to it.... I would really
> like to have a automatic i should of bought a automatic but i had\a
> hard time finding one in good shape then i say this car in really great
> shape but in was a stick but i bought it any way
> t
> 
> 
> should we send pictures of the car to each other so we can see what
> we got>>>
> 
> 
> talk to ya later
> 
> cheryl;l
> 


-- 
Gary Benson   -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-inc@sisu.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Every new technology carries with it an opportunity to invent a new crime.
                                                    -Laurence A. Urgenson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:46:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.005349.25319@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.211744.1@stsci.edu> zellner@stsci.edu writes:
>>  >  The strongest argument for crucifixion is "multiple attestation" -- all 
>>  >  4 gospels (or 3.5 if you doubt the Markan addendum) describe it ...
>
>Of course, the accounts in Matthew and Luke are derived from Mark, so
>you *really* only have two....

Robert, Robert, Robert...again your logic escapes me.  When it
suits your purpose, you have so much delight expounding the
*differences* in the different Gospels suggesting that this author
purposely misheld information to make their point, etc, etc.
Then, when it is pointed out that all 4 Gospels agree on some
point, you poo pah that by saying that two were derived from the
third.  You cannot have it both ways.  If in your mind, the
differences in the Gospels take away from their authenticity, then
the likeness in the Gospels must add to their authenticity.

>
>>
>>St. Paul also refers to Jesus's death on a cross, in his letters to the 
>>Galatians and Corinthians.  Of course Paul wasn't an eyewitness, but he 
>>mentioned in Corinthians that many eyewitnesses were still alive, and his
>>information had to come very early.
>
>Yes, but in 1 Thessalonians - argued by many scholars to be the oldest book
>in the NT (although probably only 1 - 2 years before Galatians), Paul not only
>fails to mention the cross, but more significantly, says that THE JEWS, not
>the Romans, executed Jesus.

The 1 Thessalonian letter is basically a short one (1950 words) with a specific
purpose in mind.  What logical reason do you have for Paul to have mentioned
the crucifixion in that letter specifically?

>
>>Someone once told me that the Greek word translated "cross" (stauros) doesn't 
>>necessarily refer to a structure with a cross-piece, but simply a "stake" or
>>"pole".  I don't suppose the executioners were picky.  In Galatians Paul also
>>referred to Jesus' "death on a tree" (xylon).  It could have been literally a
>>section of tree-trunk. 
>
>  But the obvious allusion to the "curse" of Deut. 21:22-23 implies a
>  Rabbinical-style hanging. And the Deut. commandment that the body be
>  taken down by nightfall would not apply to a Roman execution, only
>  to a Jewish one.

A stoning actually.  But again, it was not the method of death that was
crucial in those passages, but the leaving of a dead body hanging on a
tree.

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:53:45 GMT

  > ... Look, if someone claims to be a xian and acts in a manner that 
  > is supposedly the xian manner, who is to say that that action is 
  > un-xian?  Another xian.  But what if the first xian says the second 
  > is not really an xian?  
  >
  > Look, it's simple.  If an xian performs an act and says its an xian
  > act, that's what xianity is, whether other xians like it or not.

Xrist himself might disagree, and his judgement would be definitive.  But
he might not choose to post on the internet.  Seriously, I am seeing a lot 
of purely ad hominem arguments:

  - "Adherents of Theory XYZ include known scoundrels.  Therefore Theory
     XYZ must be wrong."

  - "Adherents of Theory XYZ cannot even agree on some of the essentials.
     Therefore their theory must be entirely nonsense."

I have heard the first argument applied by the luddites to the founders of
evolutionary biology.  The second argument could be applied to quantum 
mechanics, general relativity, or even all of science. 

Ben
From: vinch@iastate.edu (The Doomsday)
Subject: Need Help on ALIENS stuff!!
Summary: Please ..please help me!
Keywords: aliens
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:29:40 GMT

  I was to write an argumentative paper about aliens.
  The problem is I must be on the contra side of the existence of 
  extraterrestrial life....
  I am against the existence of extraterrestrial life....
  It is tough, huh???

  But still I need to do that.. I need your help by Sunday night (Dec 13)
  I am desperate..please please help me...

    reply directly to e-mail address: vinch@iastate.edu
  Thank's A  LOT  !!!!
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:24:57 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Dec10.172102.6968@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>
>Is it possible that homeopathic remedies cause the body to react to protect
>itself against the remedy, and in doing so actually attack the problem
>being remedied? Sounds plausible to me. I'm not saying I'm totally sold
>on the idea. I'm just saying I'm willing to give it a try.

This is what homeopaths claim, but there isn't a shred of evidence for
it.  Moreover, the homeopaths claim that the original "irritant" must be
similar, not equal.  And by "similar" they mean that also very many
psychological and subjective symptoms should be exactly the same  as in
the case of decent adult citizens that have been given the undiluted 
stuff in the previous century.  Also, the homeopathic is supposed to 
work only when diluted by a factor 10^30 or so.
No way this could be called plausible. It's just a magical system,
analogous to astrology.

JWN

>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
>(619) 485-2504                                    |
>---------------------------------------------------