HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:06:37 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <BvLI5u.Brx@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>Uh, I could be in for more than I am prepared to take on,

Very probably I'm afraid.

> but here goes:

[Explanation of Xtian faith]

>So too, a sceptic refuses to believe what he reasons can't be true. From
>some intangible source, a sceptic draws his knowledge of what is correct.
>Thus for some unexplained phenomena, a sceptic will seek to find
>some *rational* solution. This *rational* solution is obviously made with
>respect to his own infallable judgement. Thus a sceptic has ultimate FAITH
>in his knowledge of how things are.

No.  Everything I believe is open to question.  If someone showed me
convincing proof of the existence of psi powers or flying saucers then
I would accept it.  However, there are a number of things which I
already have very good reason to believe, and these would be
contradicted by the existence of psi or flying saucers.  Hence I
require some very convincing evidence before I change my mind.  This
is a different attitude to a religious fanatic who will not change
his/her mind no matter what evidence is presented.  See the
alt.atheism FAQ for more details on this.

>So there must be a point in life, when
>a sceptic has acquired such knowledge, as to enable such infallable 
>judgements.

Its a gradual process.  I used to rate psi as "fairly probable".  Now
I know better.  Someday I may know better still.

>This raises the question: What is a sceptic, before they have
>acquired the requisite knowledge to make such valuable judgements? An 
>answer suggests itself: This trainee sceptic often made incorrect
>judgements which were subsequently used to build this knowledge base.
>Once this knowledge base is complete, the sceptic can then happily
>go about the business of *rationally* explaining the unexplained.

Yes, except for the bit about "complete".  My knowledge is never
complete.  But it does improve.

[Stuff about how skeptics think they know all the answers]

I am afraid that the rest of your post is founded on this falacy, so
there is no point in refuting the rest of it.

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17259 talk.religion.misc:17507
From: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 1 Oct 92 08:07:33 GMT
Reply-To: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.


  If anyone is interested there is a recently published short book
"Questioning Christian Origins", (1982), by J.K.Elliott, who the cover
of the book says is a lecturer in New Testament Language and 
Literature in the Department of Theology at the University of Leeds, 
United Kingdom.

  He discusses the event in the NT from a skeptical viewpoint,
where to get closer to the true historical events you must try to 
eliminate later additions to the story.
  
  For instance he argues that after Jesus's death there was a "conflict"
between different groups of followers, so when the gospels were written
the writers took the opportunity to attack the members and/or beliefs of 
the losing groups.

   Among the groups which lost out were the family of Jesus, the original
diciples, and the Jewish people.

ps - those UK netters who wonder how the Bishop of Durham can criticise
those things he has  (eg the virgin birth) while still claiming 
to be a Christian, might find the answer in this book (or some similar 
one).

  
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:48:36 GMT

In article <Bvn0CL.9rI@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.030613.7050@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>|> In article <BvLI5u.Brx@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>|> 
>|> [all gone...]
>|> [
>|> >While sceptics retard the advancement of knowledge, let's try not be too 
>|> >gullible either.
>|> 
>|> This caught my eye. Do you know of any cases where a skeptic has retarded
>|> the advancement of knowledge? Does anyone? But even if a few cases are
>|> brought up, I think that as a generalization, it is wrong. 
>
>I read one in the paper just today. Some Australian doctors
>came up with a new treatment for ulcers, but couldn't convince
>the skeptical Pharm Companies to support them. Now they are 
>trying to market this through less skeptical channels. The
>evidence points to a cure that works (although not without
>side effects).

I would suspect that legal and liability issues would be major
driving forces for pharmaceutical companies, that and sufficient
profit. The FDA wants to pull vitamins off the market here, they
seem to want complete control over everything, so politics is
also a factor.
 
>Of course, you will claim the P-Companies were not *real*
>skeptics. You are of course correct in this assertion. 
>But it was the skeptical reaction to something against
>conventional wisdom which held up the development of a 
>viable product. I think this was more what Mark had in
>mind in his post.

I tend to see "advancement of knowledge" in a different light than
'development of a viable product', which does not require any
theoretical understanding at all. I admit that they often go
together.
 
>PS: I can't believe you bother posting replies to that
>    well known looney Mark Fernee's posting. He is a 
>    Creationist *and* Scientologist, and believer in
>    Dyrting's christian interpretation of Erich von
>    Daniken's theories. You guys are just wasting your 
>    time trying to convert him. He is also a registered
>    crystal healer. He will *never* finish his PhD
>    either.

This is news to me. 

>-- 
>+soluble fish+
>"You people, you do not see the grandeur in the wind and stone and stars,
> in the blood and fire and iron - but paint only the flowers."

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Successful deprogrammi
Date: 27 Sep 92 01:52:04 GMT

In article <LEET.92Sep22090434@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
wrote as follows:

> This institute is a veritable gold-mine for skeptics - the "deed to
> Beth Sarim" is great!  (One of the early leaders of the JWs bought a
> house to hold  - I think it was Moses and Elijah - upon their earthly
> return.  And, hey, since it wasn't in use *now*, well, he'd just live
> there *himself* until M & E showed up!  JWs paid for the house - and
> you thought Jim Bakker was a scam artist ...)

Not meaning to imply much of a comparison, but have you heard about
the place the Lubavicher Chassidim have allegedly built for the Messiah,
down in Dimona (in the Negev)?  I heard that the place has a library and
living quarters on the upper floor, and further that the Lubavicher
rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Brooklyn, has been dropping broad
hints that he's the legitimate tenant.  Anybody else have anything about
this?
 
Cheers,
Rick M.

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Famous Last Words
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:16:39 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Sep30.032716.5936@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

>"I estimate there is a world market for about five computers."
>                                          Thomas Watson, Head of IBM, 1943.

I don't think that this was Watson's personal estimate.  I think it was
from a market survey conducted by his company.  The point still stands
though.

>Anyone got more quotes like the above?

A Western Union memo stated that the the telephone "is inherantly of
no use to us".  In the UK, the head of the Post Office (I think)
remarked that "the Americans may have use for the telephone.  We do
not.  We have plenty of office boys."  Meanwhile the Mayor of an
American town was more visionary, saying "I can see a time when every
town will have one!".  Another writer of the time (can't remember who)
forsaw an age when "A man might call a friend and ask `Where are you?',
and the friend would answer, as it might be, `Crossing the Sahara', or
`In the middle of the Pacific'.  Or the friend might not answer, and
so the caller could reasonably conclude that his friend was dead.

I came accross these facts in a book of essays by A.C. Clarke.  Sorry
I have no better references than that.

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: 003316g@ace.acadiau.ca (STEPHEN EDWARD ELLIOTT GREGORY)
Subject: Re: Twins ( formerly: Totally Unrelated Drivel.... )
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:44:51 GMT

	I remember reading somewhere that identical twins aren't actually 
that identical. That they often have different views, tastes, and so on. So 
it does not surprise me that identical twins could be of different sexual 
orientation ( oh I just love political correctiveness ).
From: lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Where is it?
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:32:24 GMT

For 2 days now...my site has not received any updated files from sci.skeptic.
It keeps saying....0 files to read..etc.....and I know that this just isnt
true...yet some of the otehr newsgroups ARE being updated.

Just letting you know.....I do not pretend to know the facts behind this
BUT it does seem rather odd.

Len
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Lauren Stratford's _Satan's Underground_
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 3 Oct 1992 11:53 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

This book, published in 1988, was shown to be almost entirely fabrication
by an investigative report published in 1990 in the Christian magazine
_Cornerstone_ (copies of this article have circulated the net).  I just
discovered, however, that the book was reissued in July 1991 by a different
publisher:  Pelican Publishing Co., a small Louisiana publisher.  This new
edition features cover blurbs from such people as Hal Lindsey and Johanna
Michaelson (who helped get the book published in the first place, but who
I thought accepted the _Cornerstone_ criticisms) and Mike Warnke (whose
claims of being a "former Satanist High Priest" have just recently been
shown to be false by _Cornerstone_).
   What is most galling about the new edition of the book, however, is its
afterword, by three Los Angeles clinical psychologists, all women sporting
either an M.D. or Ph.D. after their names.  The two-page afterword does
not address *any* of the _Cornerstone_ criticisms, but alludes to them by
saying that (paraphrase) "some critics state that this book should not
have been published unless every single fact within it could be verified
and documented."  It goes on to say how unreasonable these critics are,
and that numerous other people have reported stories "like" Lauren
Stratford's.  I suspect that the "some critics" referred to do not exist;
that no one has made any such claim about Stratford's book.  The _Cornerstone_
criticism thoroughly documented the fact that the book is almost entirely
a fabrication by Laurel Wilson (the real name of "Lauren Stratford"), a
very disturbed young woman whose story has changed radically over time.

Surely both the publisher and these clinical psychologists must be aware
of the details of these criticisms.  To go ahead and republish the book
is the height of irresponsibility.  Those interested in the address of
the new publisher may send me email.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Paying Attention (was: Reincarnation)
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.021927.3465@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
[...]
>>
> 
> What I am sorry about, however, is that you seem to see such
> evil intentions in people whose views are different then yours.  Why do
> you think that is?

I cannot speak for Carl, but why don't you go back to the basis of the
discussion.  Is religion differentiable from superstition?  Carl has been
trying to get you to stabilize some common definitions and then see if they
could be of value in collecting objective information (I think!).  The answer
sure appears to be no.
[...]
> Gosh Carl, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today?  My argument on
> the use of good/bad luck has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.  We
> were discussing how the term luck is used and understood.  I maintain that
> if someone believes that good luck has left them, then what they mean is that
> misfortune or bad luck will follow.

Hey, is belief in good luck  the  same as belief in religion?

GXKambic
sd
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17073 talk.religion.misc:17318
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 28 Sep 1992 21:38:23 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: sheaffer@netcom.com's message of Sat, 26 Sep 92 03:12:33 GMT

In article <k00nb-+.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

   Interestingly, Buddhist temples today in Japan and elsewhere still have
   "moneychangers" and "sanctities for sale" located conveniently right
   outside the door. But then, Jesus never visited that part of the world! :)

This sort of thing was common at Greek religious sites and objects of
pilgrimage, such as Delphi, which was home to a brisk trade in relics,
souvenirs, refreshments (actual inscription: ``Wine purchased outside
the theater may not be brought inside''), etc.  Not to mention the
fortunes made by selling the prophecies themselves: expensive
prophecies, involving the fate of empires at Delphi, and low-rent
prophecies, about every day worries (actual example: ``Is the child
mine?'') at popular shrines of prophecy like Dodona.  Interestingly
enough: the daily astrology columns, dial-your-horoscope services, and
the like seem to have taken the place of Dodona, and ``super-star''
``psychics'' like Jeanne Dixon seem to now fill the Delphi niche.

I go now, to take refuge behind my walls of wood...

-30-
Bob

``If you invade Persia, you will destroy a great empire.''
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Some Real Physics (Was: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology)
Date: 30 Sep 1992 14:53 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep30.200235.20822@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes...

>In article <30SEP199211494188@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>>>Yes, we can be sure-- when the gravitational pull of the doctor/midwife
>>>who delivered you is greatly exceeds the total gravitational pull of the
>>>other planets.

>>Come on. This is just not true.  Have any of you gugs who believe this
>>actually tried to work out the numbers?   Geez.

>Do you know what tides are?

Most of us who got physics degrees from MIT and are now graduate students
at Berkeley know quite a bit about tides.  

>The tidal forces are indeed greater from the doctor than the sun.  Tides are
>caused by the difference in gravitational forces between the front and the
>back.  Although the sun's gravity is strong, all of a person is essentially
>the same distance from it, which is not so for nearby things.

That's not what the original poster was talking about, as you can see
from the question which you yourself reposted.  He was making a claim about
the net gravitational pull of the Sun, vs. the Doctor.  That's the question
to which I responded.

But you're still doing the same thing that I complained about in the first
place - what good are your words when a little calculation is at hand?
Can't you see that your mumbings about "all of a person is essentially 
the same distance from it" are useless to a skeptic?  Physics is built
upon mathematics, not philosophy.

Let's consider the tidal stress:

Of the Sun on the Baby:

Length of the baby = 1 foot.
Fractional change in the Sun's pull over the length of the baby = 
	(9.3E7*5280+1)/(9.3E7*5280) - 1 = 2E-12

Of the Moon on the Baby:

Fractional change = (384,000,000*3+1)/(384,000,000*3) - 1 = 9E-10

Of the Doctor on the Baby:
	
I assumed in my previous post that the doctor was 2 feet from the baby, 
so the fractional change in the force is:
	(2+1)/2 - 1  = .5

Now we scale by the relative average pull to get the relative tidal stress:

Sun/Doctor  = 2E-12/0.5 * 300000 = 1E-6
Moon/Doctor = 9E-10/0.5 * 10000  = 2E-5

So the Doctor indeed produces more tidal stress than either the Sun 
or the Moon. 

Incidentally, you can divide these two ratios to get:

Moon/Sun = 20.

This is roughly correct, and demonstrates why the Moon dominates the Earth's
tides and why the Earth-Moon-Sun alignment produces small corrections which
lead to neap tides, etc.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: <None>
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:35:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.191617.4384@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Sep25.001922.17712@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
|> > In article <1092@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|> >>In article <Sep18.050933.60537@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
|> >>|In article <GERRY.92Sep17120955@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
|> >>|What *I* want to know is how come all the pro-choicers are against capital
|> >>|punishment?
|> >>|
|> >>I'm not.
|> > 
|> > Me either.
|> > 
|> 
|> Neither am I.
|> Never have been against capitol punishment.  I consider it the best deterrent
                           ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
 Would that be Congress, the Senate, or Bush?

|> against repeat offenders.  If you fry 'em they'll never do it again!
|> 
|> Sue
|> 
|> >>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
|> > 
|> > 	Max G. Webb

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17227 talk.religion.misc:17480
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:55:24 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>Which of course would itself be a violation of Jewish law, to just
>plain-out lynch the accused without trial before the Sanhedrin. 
..
>The account of Steven's death, as given in Acts, is not credible as it
>stands.
..
>Hiam Cohn, a contemporary justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, wrote
>in his book "The Trial of Jesus" that it would be *unthinkable* for the
>Sanhedrin to "hand over" a Jewish man to be tried by the Roman enemy

Have you seen the talks that used to be (and maybe still are -- I just
haven't seen it recently) given by Christian lawyers about the
illegality of Jesus' trial?  It strikes me that your posting has the
same problem as those talks.  But assume that the Sanhedrin operated
during this period in the same way that Jewish religious courts do now
or that the Talmud describes.  But the situations are rather
different.  First, it would not have been a purely religious body at
that time.  It would have had a certain amount of political power.
Second, that power would have depended upon maintaining a relationship
with Rome.  After 70 AD, you're dealing with groups whose situation
encourages them to take a far more pristine approach to the Law.  I
maintain that the members of the Sanhedrin in 30 AD would almost have
to have been people who were willing to work with the Romans.
Furthermore, it's not clear that Jesus' trial was a formal Jewish
legal proceeding.  A number of commentators suggest that it was an
informal hearing that was not intended to produce a legal verdict, but
was aimed at figuring out the right way to handle the problem was.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic