HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matthew@rima.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Matthew Hobbs)
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Skepticism (Was Re: Faith and sceptics.)
Organization: Institute of Statistics and Operations Research, VUW, Wellington, NZ
Keywords: Popper, pessimism, progress
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 08:47:12 GMT


Derek Abbott wrote:

> [Karl Popper] .. that science CANNOT prove anything true, but it
> can prove things false.
> Notice, that this clashes with skepticism which out of economy likes
> to prove that one thing is `true' rather than having to debunk 100 other
> false things to get the same result.

Skeptics try to suggest simpler explanations AND try and debunk.

> Objective scientific skepticism therefore is not sound philosophically,

You forget there is more to Popper's science, not just trying to falsify
but also comparing theories based on (besides testedness) simplicity.
(I have not done this justice - it requires a books worth of discussion.)

Hence skepticism is sound philosophically, yea it is a model application
of Popperian science.

> [`skeptical extremism' can retard knowledge]

In your point about historical advancers of society usually being
optimistic people. This is undoubtedly true, however you seem to
equate skepticism with pessimism. This is false, I could equally
say that an extreme skeptic is being optimistic that someone
elses theory is wrong (or they are right).

You provide a rationale for saying that:

PESSIMISM ==> (usually low esteem) ==> SKEPTICISM AS A PROP  ===>
              (protects himself)   ==> RETARDS PROGRESS.

But it would be a simple logical fallacy to deduce from that:

   a) skeptics have low self esteem
   b) skeptics are pessimists
   c) skeptics retard progress

so I'll assume you are not deducing any of that.

A better set of rationales is:

SKEPTICISM ==> VASTLY MORE EFFICIENT WAYS OF GETTING THEORIES ==> PROGRESS
NON-SKEPTICISM ==> RANDOM THEORY GENERATION ==> TINY PROGRESS ==> CAVE TIME
SKEPTICISM ==> CONFIDENCE IN KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE SO FAR ==> HIGH SELF ESTEEM
           ==> MONEY, SUCCESS, POWER, THE WORLD hahaheeheehohoHARghah

It is clear that progress is only made at the expense (i.e. skepticism at)
previous alternatives. It is my experience that skeptics are mentally stronger.

-------------
Matthew Hobbs (email: matthew@isor.vuw.ac.nz)
-------------
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Question of Humanity's First Language
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:16:08 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct12.123640.21156@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	Conclusions:
>
>	According to Punc-Eq, humanity had a relatively small
>ancestral population, which almost certainly had one language or at
>most a small group of closely related languages.

This doesn't follow.  What makes you think that that ancestral population
developed a language?  There remains the possibility that the population
increased and spread before the invention of language.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: It's the end of world (again!)
Date: 14 Oct 92 07:15:56 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

=m~+3\K#!Tag: David Fox (bbs.barfeau@GOONSQUAD.SPIES.COM (David Fox))
ID#: kZicsB1w165w@goonsquad.spies.com
 
DF> "I'm new to this newsgroup so I am not sure if this subject 
DF> has been discussed before. Sometime back, I recall hearing 
DF> about a book entitled "5/5/2000." It proposes significant 
DF> changes to the Earth's axial tilt on that date presumably 
DF> due to a unique alignment of the planets. I haven't read 
DF> the book - anyone know much more about this? I think
DF> I might read the book on 5/6/2000, and laugh out loud."
 
I've run that through my astrology program. I imagine the
person / folks who wrote the book / article / whatever
believe that the clump in Taurus and Gemini are going to
kill us. Better pay that insurance premium! (SMILE!)
 
+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|            | MAR 01GE13 | SUN 15TA18 |            |
|            | JUP 17TA16 | MER 10TA59 |            |
|            | SAT 19TA40 | VEN 05TA25 |            |
|            | MOO 03GE26 |            |            |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| NOD 27CA17 | END OF WORLD (AGAIN)    | URA 20AQ42 |
|            | Date: 5, 5,2000         |            |
|            | Time: 12                |            |
|            | Long.  0                |            |
+------------+ Lat.   0                +------------+
|            | Zone  0                 | NEP 06AQ40 |
|            | Koch                    |            |
|            | Type:  Geocentric       |            |
|            | Sid Diff: 0             |            |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|            |            | Plu 12SA31 |            |
|            |            |            |            |
|            |            |            |            |
|            |            |            |            |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+

--- Maximus 2.00
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17976 alt.folklore.urban:25765
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:08:39 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

torsten@cwis.unomaha.edu (Torsten Wesley Adair) writes:

>Is it possible to throw an egg from a great height and not have it 
>break when it hits a hard surface?  I think it has something to do with
>terminal velocity.

According to a friend of mine, the industrial design class at RISD
had a project where you were given an egg, a box of toothpicks, and
some glue.

The project was to build a container for the egg so that, when dropped 
off a three-story building, the egg did not break.

This makes me think that your question about eggs travelling at terminal
velocity is in fact as dumb as it sounds.  Since eggs break when dropped 
from the hand to the floor, why wouldn't they break when going faster?

-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:47:21 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct17.022117.131@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
=Update:  First of all, I should have named the source for my
=information on this case.  It came from a report on _60 Minutes_ that
=appeared last winter.

Why didn't you go looking for a CREDIBLE source?  Like _Weekly_World_News_?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:12:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.101430.13334@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes in part:

|> I say it [astrology] has a theory, and that you don't know what that is.

Granted (in my case):  Please point me to source or sources for the "theory".
|> 1) I have proven my beliefs to my self.
Lemma 1':  I never make mistakes.
Lemma 1'':  Personal experience is an infallible source of information
      about both internal and external events.
|> 2) This skeptic says I'm wrong.
|> 3) Then he hasn't my internal experience.
Lemma 3':  The skeptics internal experience is irrelvant.
|> 4) What could have induced him to dispute my experience?
|>   a) He is closed-minded.
|>   b) He doesn't know anything about the subject.
|>   c) He has a reaction pattern in which he ridicules what he doesn't believe.
|>   d) He only wants to have an argument.
|>   e) He is afraid of the intellectual consequences for his present worldview.
|>   f) He is afraid of what his family, friends and neighbors will think.
|>   g) He is caught in White-Western eschewal of things labeled 'occult'. (e,f)
|>   h) He thinks science accounts for human experience. Or has even a CLUE.
|>   i) He really doesn't give a damn, he holds his opinion
|> 	 "because he feels like it."
|>   j) He refuses existing dissonant information.
|> 5) So I tolerate his ignorant abuse while I get on with my own life.
|>   a) And I remain patient while he remains disinvested. $$ NOT ANY MORE $$
|>   b) And I tolerate watching him use the same hand-waving techniques
|> 	 he claims I do. $$ NOT ANY MORE $$
|>   c) And I remain patient while watching him propose tests he mistakenly
|> 	 assumes will validate the subject - a subject he knows nothing about.
|>   d) And I remain patient while he denies he has any emotional stake in the
|> 	 outcome. $$ NOT ANY MORE $$

|> I agree, original-4b is pretty handy. Especially when the information is freely
|> available to those with the interest to pursue it.
Please point me to what you are talking about here.

|> Those who don't, still enjoy the freedom to harrass, but not without being
|> called down for it, which I have done earlier.
Awfully nice of you to let other people disagree with your own personal
experience.  I'm sure we all appreciate the generosity implied by this
comment.  Getting flamed by you is a pretty scary prospect, I must
admit.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul, branch 2
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:12:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: blaze.1992Oct9.161233.29324
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Oct7.230928.25050@telesciences.com> msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio) writes:
>LF>But shoving it off to another reality doesn't change anything. What
>LF>about the physical laws of the ther reality where you want to put the
>LF>spirit?
>There obviously aren't any physical laws in this other reality.  Laws,
>yes, but not physical laws.  The laws would be of a different nature and
>may not be analogous to physical laws.

This sounds like gobbledygook to me.  What are laws that are not analogous to
physical laws?

I was under the impression that a physical law states that under so-and-so
circumstances, so-and-so happens or so-and-so doesn't happen.  A law not
analogous to physical laws would be a law not fit by this pattern, and I
can't think of any other pattern it can fit.

It seems to me that your "non-analogous" laws are analogous.

>I don't have any problem
>believing that the spirit is subject to laws because I do not believe 
>the will is autonomous or free.  But I do have a problem believing that
>the will is a slave to physics, as I will explain later.

But if your spirit is bound by laws (even "nonphysical" laws), doesn't that
just make the spirit a slave to nonphysical laws instead of physical ones?
What, really, is the difference between being the slave to these two?

>Now, to give this whole issue some relevance to this newsgroup, the
>original question was, "Can the existence of the spirit be proven or
>disproven with science?"  My answer is, "No, because science is bound
>by the physical universe, and the spirit exists outside of the physical
>universe.  As such, it is not bound by physical laws, and thus is
>unpredictable by a physical model."  More or less.  You don't even have
>to believe in a spirit to agree with this answer.  Just place the word
>"postulated" before "spirit" and read the sentence again.

It is bound by laws of some type.  These laws may allow a model, even if you
decide to call it a nonphysical model.

It also affects the physical universe in physical ways.  These physical ways
may be accessible to science, and science may thus say some things about the
spirit.
--
"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: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Skepticism (Was Re: Faith and sceptics.)
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:06:43 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Oct13.182341.412@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.074959.26981@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes in part:
>|> The guy who keeps static and just protects himself, using skepticism as a
>|> psychological mask, retards progress.
>
>*Straw man alert*
>
>Give me an example of someone who does this.

We all do. To various degrees. If we are totally honest with ourselves.
I include myself. Is there anyone out there who's perfect and never
used skepticism as a mask? If so, please step forward.

But to find an extreme case, just look around your faculty and pick out
the grouchiest, most pessimistic, most negative, most defensive skeptic
(there's always a few around, cummon you know who I mean) and voila.

Now look around and pick out the most bubbly, optimistic, positive person
in your faculty.

Ask yourself which one of the two seems to synergize things more and makes
things happen. Which one is the shaker & mover?

>Most of the "static"
>people I know of "protect" themselves with absolute ideologies, such
>as religions, which absolve them from any thought at all.

Exactly. And that's precisely what we are talking about: the dangers
of skepticism becoming like a religious fervour.

Skepticism, by it's nature, always defends the status quo. Therefore, taken to
extreme it's  "static."

>What is the point?

Awareness exercise. :-)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:00:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.201008.29751@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>that ignores what an addiction is. If they could stop, they would not 
>>>be addicts.
>>
>>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL:
>>
>>Well, yes and no.  Given sufficient reason to stop, addicts CAN break the
>>addiction.  When I was told that if I kept smoking, my ulcer would probably
>>take much longer to heal, I quit smoking.  Period.
>
>I did not say it was impossible, just that the nature of an addiction is
>not "I can stop whenever I want".

It really boils down to which you value more highly. The day that a drunk
decides that the value of sobriety is higher than the pleasure he gets
from drink, he will stop drinking. Carl decided that the benefit he would
get from having his stomach heal was far greater than what he was getting
out of cigarettes. A person who successfully loses weight has decided
that the benefits of being slim outweigh the benefits of overeating. And
so on.




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

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Satan: Big Business
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:22:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <n0bb0t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes...
>JLL> "[....] and Johanna Michaelson (who helped get the book
>JLL> published in the first place, but who I thought accepted
>JLL> the _Cornerstone_ criticisms) [....]"
> 
>Ha! Another liar of monumental stature. She wrote "He Came to
>Set the Captives Free," and "The Beautiful side of Evil." She

Actually, the first of these two books is by "Rebecca Brown, M.D.",
the pseudonym of an Indiana doctor who was suspended from practice in
that state for overprescribing tranquilizers and claiming that her 
patients were possessed by demons.  (She was also using the tranquilizers
on herself.)  She moved to California and wrote this book and another for
Jack Chick Publications.  Michaelson did write the second book, and she
is Hal Lindsey's wife.

>tours from state to state hauling her pet psychotic woman
>around on a leash, telling people that vegetarianism is one
>way Satan lures people into hell. I think she's the one who

The one with the "pet psychotic woman" is "Rebecca Brown."

>JLL> "What is most galling about the new edition of the book,
>JLL> however, is its afterword, by three Los Angeles clinical
>JLL> psychologists, all women sporting either an M.D. or Ph.D.
>JLL> after their names."
> 
>You will find all three women come from the same organization,
>working for a Dr. Maas. I can email their address and phone
>number to you if you want to talk to them personally.

I would.  Please email me.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:28:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.084301.17772@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes in part:
|> >|> Especially when the information is freely
|> >|> available to those with the interest to pursue it.
|> 
|> >Please point me to what you are talking about here.
|> 
|> When I was an M.S. Grad student at MU in Oxford, Ohio, I went every few days
|> to the library and came back home with stacks of books - algebraic topology,
|> analysis, category theory, model theory, proof theory, etc. etc. etc.
|> I pored over those books - mostly unintelligible - just to try to get a feel
|> for what the subject did and how it worked. It only took about a week or two
|> to realize that what I got out of a B.S. in Math was garbage, compared to
|> what there was to know.
Are you saying I can't understand astrological theory without a lot of effort?

|> 
|> Whoever has a marginal interest in what Astrology may or may not be, can go
|> to an occult or new-age bookstore and browse dozens of titles on it.
|> Barbara Hand-Clow wrote a book on Chiron which turned into one of those
|> "crystals, rainbows and unicorns" type things that I - yes, *I* - have trouble
|> with - I know she knows what she's talking about because I know about it too,
|> from my own perspective, but I wouldn't be able to get it from her style of
|> thought.
Boy this was a lot of help.

Look, I don't happen to have an "occult or new-age bookstore" (whatever that
might be.  I have several REALLY good libraries though, if you could give
me some titles.

The only title you give is Hand-Clow, but you seem to be saying it is not
worth reading.

Help me out a bit here--if there is, as you claim, theoretical underpinning
for astrolgy, then explain what I need to learn to understand it and point
me to some reasonable references.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:10:09 GMT

I am about to jump into the middle of this thread, 
so please excuse me if I change the tack slightly:

Perhaps we should stop treating the Bible etc as a source 
of historical information, and give up attempting to analyse 
the motives of its protagonists.

The reason (some) people care about the bible is because it 
has meaning to them, not because of any claimed historical
accuracy. (Not that m/any christians realise this).

The reason Judas betrayed Jesus was simply that Jesus 
could not have died for our sins unless *someone* 
betrayed him. Someone had to betray Jesus, and Judas
just happened to be the one. If he had not betrayed
Jesus, then he would have instead betrayed Jesus's 
purpose on this earth (to be crucified and die for
our sins... etc).

PS: I am not a christian. I am not even religious. 
    The christian message has little place in my
    life. I just think that myth should be analysed in 
    terms of it's intended message or meaning, not 
    as a collection of "facts" or "pseudo-facts".
-- 
+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."