HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Legitimate but Trivial Anomalies ?
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:29:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1da6krINNnbv@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <6164@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>
>>Many of the data he collected went into tests of this 
>>idea.  So even if the first result was a fluke, the later ones are
>>not flukes.
>
>That depends on how many other tests he did where the hypothesis was NOT
>supported.
>
>>Moreover the allegation that he didn't report his failures is rubbish.
>>If there is one researcher whose extensive reports about failed astrological
>>relations have sereved to debunk astrology, then it's Gauquelin.
>
>Then just how many studies were done to test this hypothesis, how many of them
>supported it and how many failed to support it?

Your approach is, as Jan indicated, rather too simple, and certainly not
likely to get at the "truth" of the matter.  Just for starters, "how
many" is an inadequate question, since what you are counting may be
apples and oranges, and furthermore even if all oranges, may be of
greatly varying quality, not to mention the necessity for weighting to
accomodate statistical power.

It is ironic that Jan is relegated to what might be perceived as a
defense of the Mars effect, and I suspect that his regard for Gauquelin
is well founded, for he evidently has studied the literature and done so
with a good understanding of the pitfalls.
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Audis (was Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives)
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:36:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <GERRY.92Nov9123747@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes...
>Despite all the talk, I find it hard to believe that the problem was
>solely the fault of the drivers.  Even if the pedals were marginally
>closer than the norm, this can not explain why such a disproportionate
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>number of accidents happened with Audis but not other cars.  I do not
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>believe in conspiracy theories, but I suspect that Audi went out of
>its way to cover up the facts to prevent being sued out of business.

1.  What is your evidence that this is the case?  I know there were
    cases of "sudden acceleration" in other cars as well.
    And see 3, below.
2.  Audi's business was very, very badly damaged.
3.  The pedal placement on the Audi 5000 had the accelerator and brake
    somewhat closer to each other than on most cars.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19024 rec.org.mensa:7999
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Astrology: Scientific Research
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:43:55 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?

In article <zlsiida.353@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>In article <1992Oct31.195121.27772@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> banghartr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu (Rick Banghart, IPTV) writes:
>
>>Why is a statistical correlation weaker evidence?
>>It seems to me that a strong statistical correlation between
>>planet positions and human behavior, found by independent
>>researchers, and mutually confirming, would be very strong
>>evidence.
>
>there is an incredibly strong negative correlation between the soccer 
>matches I predict as score draws and the ones that actually do turn out to 
>be.  but there is no causal link.
>correlations may indicate areas worth investigating, but have little 
>intrinsic meaning.

* there probably isn't a negative correlation

* there's probably a slight positive one.  There is a causal link, too:
both "how the teams actually do" and "how you think they'll do" go back
to "what the teams are like" via "what you think they're like".

There can't be a true, repeatably findable correlation without *some*
sort of causal link, with the possible exception of the passage of time.
  __                                ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:28:30 GMT


I think we ought to resist such trashing and impoverishment of our language,
especially when it is done because of some hidden sociological or political
agenda.  We've seen far too much of that in this century, like 'People's
Republic' to refer to a nasty dictatorship. 

If 'cripple' is now perjorative but 'handicapped' isn't, how long before 
'handicapped' also becomes perjorative?  Maybe that's already happened!  
Thereby we have lost two useful words from our vocabulary, and replaced 
them with some euphemism that will itself be trashed in another decade or 
two.

Also we must resist any attempts to read the new vocabulary back into old 
documents.  When Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" or 
when King James' men translated 'anthropos' as 'man', they had absolutely 
no intention of referring to male humans only.  And when the latter used 
"He" in reference to the Holy Spirit (feminine in the Greek, I think), they 
certainly had no intention of implying that He has testicles! 

Ben
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The guns of roston (wa
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:43:43 GMT

In article <2NOV199210270648@csa2.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov 
(SCOTT I CHASE) wrote as follows:
 
> Not *all* constitutional scholars would agree....
 
So I now gather.
 
> The wording of the Amendment is roughly that "A well-regulated 
> militia being necessary" for the protection of the people, Congress 
> shall pass no laws abridging "the right to bear arms".  One reason-
> able interpretation is that anyone should be allowed to own a 
> firearm, to become proficient in its use if he so choose, so that in
> time of crisis, a militia could be organized with sufficiently 
> expert members so as to be "well-regulatable."
 
However, the applications of this provision in actual case law
have not been consistent with this interpretation.  Every time
someone has asserted the Second Amendment against efforts
by states and other governmental bodies to regulate arms (including
but not limited to firearms), the courts have ruled to the contrary.
 
Cheers,
Rick M.
moen@blyth.com

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Summary: RKBA
Keywords: None
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:36:48 GMT

In article <51419@seismo.CSS.GOV>, tcarter@seismo.CSS.GOV (Thomas Carter) writes:


< All information deleted for space>

I just want you to clarify your position.  You've stated that
the RKBA applies to individuals, and is not modifiable by the
states.  Is that right?  I'd like to hear your opinion on the
following scenarios, just to see if I understand you:

1)  A 12 year old boy takes his father's pistol to school with him.
    Can school officials take it away?

2)  A violent criminal is released on bail.  His first stop is
    a gun store - can he be forbidden to buy the gun?

3)  I rent an apartment overlooking a schoolyard.  Early one morning
    I screw down the tripod of an automatic weapon to the window sill,
    attach the gun so it points down towards the schoolyard,
    and sit there by the gun, smiling, waiting for recess.  Can
    anyone make me not do this?

4)  You like to ride on public transportation, holding your Magnum
    in your hand.  Is this against any law?  Occasionally you playfully
    point it at an old lady and "Pow!  Pow!".  Is this legal?


marc colten

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.motss,alt.atheism,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
From: gandalf@dworkin.ccs.northeastern.edu (Thomas M Farrell)
Subject: Re: Correlation between sexual preference of parents and children
Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:48:55 GMT

Hmmm. That raises interesting thoughts for me... what about the other way
around? If a child is gay, what are the chances at least one parent is?
I've had reason to have kind of vague wonderings about each of my parents
at one time or another, so I'd be interested to know the chances one of them
is gay. 
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:21:21 GMT

In article <1dkf91INNia8@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1dkd2pINNk9j@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
>>> >P.S. We've lost track of the original argument, i.e. whether or not
>>> >Christianity can be judged on the basis of its followers' actions.
>>> >I think that one deserves more thought.  Let's get back to it.
>>> 
>>> If it can't be judged based on that, then on what can it possibly be judged?
>>> How can it possibly be distinguished from a philosophy that simply says
>>> "Everybody should be happy"?
>
>My first paragraph said that the only way to judge any particular philosophy is
>by its results.  As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good
>intentions.  No matter how well-intentioned something might be, if it leads to
>bad consequences, the intentions don't count for jack shit.

But you are not judging the overall results, are you.  You are
specifically targeting the negative to the exclusion of everything
else.  Using your logic, I could condemn *any* belief or
non-belief by the same method.  You cannot logically assume that
for a religion to have positive merit, that all its followers will
adhere to its tenets.  And if you keep up your line that no one
can ever determine what its tenets are, then you've just created a
totally meaningless situation.

>
>My second paragraph said that defining Christianity in some way that has no
>corresponding operational definition is bogus.  What your, Ata's, and Leet's
>definitions work out to be is "Someone is a Christian if and only if Agney (or
>Ata or Leet) says he is, and then only for as long as they continue to say he
>is."  That is NOT a very useful definition.  Unless you use a definition that
>allows anyone else to figure out whether, according to your criteria, a
>particular person is a Christian, then your definition is bogus.

This is pure nonsense Carl.  If you really want to do something
positve, go to the library and do some research on "The principals
and teachings of Christ".  Pretend that you've never heard of
Christianity before.  Be open.  I have every confidence that you
will come up with a clear working definition of what Christianity
stands for (Christianity: Someone who follows the teachings of
Jesus Christ). 

>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>
-- 
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
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <roelle.721501117@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes...
>Path: uars_mag!roelle
>Date: 11 Nov 92 16:36:08 GMT
>Message-ID: <roelle.721499768@uars_mag>
>Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
>Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
>References: <1992Nov10.135554.1@cs2.lamar.edu>
> 
>carlis_jc@cs2.lamar.edu writes:
> 
>>   In reguard to the $1,000 contest to find a totaly consistent account of the
>>"Gospel" storys it would seem that the orginazation that offered said prize is
>>requireing one to win the "no win scenario".
> 
>Yes, I must agree.  On the one hand, suppoose all four gospels were
>identical.  They all include the same events, describe them similarly,
>and none include "side bars" not found in the other three.  The only
>noticeable differences might be grammatical.  With four accounts all
>in unison, wouldn't the argument for their authenticity be cinched?
>Hardly.  For then those who currently criticize the gospels for being
>different would cry, "Collusion!  Without any differences in the
>accounts given by independant individuals, how can one rule out
>deceit?"
> 
>As we know the four gospels have their differences.  Some highlight
>events not included by the others, while identical events are
>described differently by different persons.  Differences will occur in
>eyewitness accounts.  Witness A saw the airplane going down in flames
>while witness B saw no fire until impact.  Obviously both witnesses
>are deliberatly trying to deceive us because their accounts are
>different.  Or is one wrong and the other right?  Are more witnesses
>needed so a majority determination can be made?  How many are needed
>for a majority?  Three?  No?  O.K. then, how about Four?  Well then,
>how many would it take?

Eyewitnesses don't get everything right (unless, of course, they are
being divinely guided so that their every word is accurate).  But when
there are conflicts between eyewitnesses, it is clear that *at least
one of them is wrong*.  This conclusion is not one which a biblical
literalist is willing to draw.
   Also, if one witness says an airplane's engine fell off while another
says the plane was shot down by an alien spacecraft, there is reason to
believe that more is going on than the typical errors of perception and
memory that plague eyewitness accounts.

> 
>Curt roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:47:50 GMT


 > Does the 2nd amendment say "all adults" ... where in the constitution
 > does it say "Only citizens who have not been convicted of a crime
 > have the RKBA"

But obviously, that's the point of the language about a well-regulated 
militia.  As people have correctly pointed out, 'regulated' didn't mean 
regimented, it meant _skilled_.  An unskilled gun-toter could be more 
of a hazard to himself and his buddies than to the enemy.  And 'militia'
didn't mean 'army', it meant all citizens who were capable of bearing 
arms in the defense of the state, not disqualified by age, physical or 
mental disability, moral turpitude (e.g., felony conviction), or compelling 
duties or responsibilities otherwise.  The exact boundaries could be 
determined locally, by statute and case law.
  
Later amendments provided that the right to vote could not be denied on the 
basis of race, sex, or previous condition of servitude, but did not prohibit 
their denial on the basis of age, mental impairment, or felony conviction.
 
However freedom of speech, assembly, worship, the press, access to due legal 
process, etc., are NOT so limited.  They belong to everyone.

 > ... they can pass laws on driving because there is nothing in the 
 > Constitution about it - but since the Constitution mentions the RKBA 
 > no laws can be made to limit it.  
  
Now that's interesting.  I believe the constitutions of several states
provide that access to the public highways is not a privilege granted by
administrative authorities, but a _right_ that can be taken away only by
due process of law.  Possession of a valid drivers' license doesn't GIVE
you the right to drive on the highways, it only DOCUMENTS that you have
not been disqualified from that right, as a passport doesn't make you a
citizen, it only documents your citizenship.  I think a similar
principle could be applied to the right to bear arms. 

Of course a good argument can be made that we should keep a wide fence
around all fundamental rights, and not let the government push right up
to the constitutional limits, because they won't know when to stop.

Ben

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Plausible Denial (WAS Re: Measurement & Precision)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:57:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.233918.29551@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>...
>Not that I'm in the habit of doing that, but what's wrong with that?
>...
>What's makes you think your the moral cop?

Derek, you are going to have to do better than respond to an article where I
point out that some questions need not be answered, with no arguments except
for a few questions.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Where has Galileo been all these years?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 02:31:47 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <2930020228.3.p00168@psilink.com>, "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>Did I hear correctly?  Has the Vatican now officially recognized the
>!!!SUN as the center of the universe?  Surely not.

Actually, it's officially acknowledged the Big Bang.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Kindred spirits (Vegans)
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:31:30 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)


     From a recent discussion in rec.food.veg. Sci.skeptic, please set this
guy striaght via e-mail...(mail him (avi), not me, if you would please.)

avi@seal.imagen.com writes:
>>     Uri Geller? Ulp! Yikes! How distressing to learn that I have something
>>in common with such a charlatan. Ah well. An idea is not responsible
>>for who believes it.
>
>1.Geller a Charlatan ? This is news to me, as I still remember in my childhood
>before Geller started travelling to the U.K. and the U.S.for demonstrations
>that he would make broken clocks and watches start ticking again all over the 
>country, on one night. This was confirmed by hundreds of phone calls from many
>people around the country to the Radio Station (or was it TV ?) which was
>airing this sensation at a time.  I also know that to this day he is being
>employed by corporations to find oil and water, and the he's a
>multi-millionare because of that.

>Now - if he was exposed, surely nobody will
>hire him and pay him good money for that.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
                     Keep your values off my family.
     "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
      a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
      district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
      district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
      informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
      confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
      process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
      Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
      -- The Constitution of the United States of America
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Off Topic Topic
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:16:23 GMT

> DR> I do not consider Christians my enemy. I do, though,
> DR> consider Christianity my enemy. A greater evil one
> DR> would be hard pressed to find.
>  
> JA-FSO> "What about Christianity makes you see it as
> JA-FSO> your enemy?"
>
>  [long response]

I'm glad you responded.  Some of what you said is indeed what Christianity
teaches, from Jesus through Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin,
and mainstream denominations today.  Some of it is from the lunatic fringe,
and some of it just illustrates how people can pervert ANYTHING to their
own illicit purposes.

But still:  Does the fact that you find a proposition morally repugnant,
repressive, abominable -- even if ALL human beings find it abominable -- 
Does that prove that it is UNTRUE?

That, I think, ought to call for a little skepticism!

Cheers, Ben

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: tad@sdf.lonestar.org (Tad Dowe)
Subject: Re: The guns of roston (wa
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:12:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.180246.29152@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>I think there are several indicators that a militia is exactly what
>they had in mind and not the private ownership of guns.

This is specious. Notwithstanding that the defense of the "free state" is cert-
ainly reason enough not to infringe the *individual* right, the founding fath-
ers had a great deal of difficulty acquiring arms for their revolution; by 
formalizing the guarentee of the *individual* right they assured that this
would not happen again.

>It is likely that the
>right of a people to keep an bear arms was not all that obvious
>and needed a reason and they wanted it very clear that they
>were not advocating private armies, but government armies.
>marc colten

Of course, they planned on having "government" armies, but they were aware,
through thorough study of history that the first act of all tyrants was an
attempt to disarm the populace. The simple act of formalizing the RKBA for
the *individual* denied the ability for any tyrant under the Constitution
to even begin this action without the populace being aware of that danger;
while at the same time giving them the ability to resist the attempt (with
force if necessary).

BTW, your contention that the SC has ruled the militia *only* argument as
valid is entirely wrong. The cases they have ruled on only denied the defense
in that specific claim by the defendent which they have heard.

Tad