HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientific facts
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:02:00 GMT
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In article <1a93k4INN82t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.042421.3276@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>I'll give you my informal and unofficial definition of fever.  (No, I do
>>not have any medical qualifications).
>
>Nor, apparently, any background in physics.

Thanks for the insult.  What background (if any) do you have in physics?

>>A fever is when the oral temperature registers 99.5 or above within 20
>>seconds of inserting the thermometer in the mouth.  The rapidity with
>>which the thermometer reaches the temperature is probably more important
>>...

>Now, please take a physics course that teaches you what the heat equation is,
>then report back to us on why your paragraph above is pure nonsense.

Would you care to post your wonderful theories about physics for all to
see, so that you too can be publically ridiculed?

The fact is, when the thermometer is inserted in the mouth, the temperature
of the oral cavity is likely to be below body temperature (except on
very hot days) because the mouth is open and cooled by the ambient air
and by evaporation.  The rapidity with which the thermometer reaches an
equilibrium temperature is a good measure of the rapidity with which
the oral cavity reaches body temperature.  I am assuming the thermometer
is in contact with some surface, usually the tongue.  For someone with
a fever, this rise in temperature is typically quite rapid, for the
blood vessels are dilated.  When there is no fever the blood vessels to
the mouth and tongue are not dilated so do not carry nearly as much warm
blood to the area.  For exactly the same reason, many parents can
recognize a child's fever by just feeling the forehead.

Now please expound on your wonderful theories of physics and the heat
equation, and their relation to this.
From: kachun@delphinus.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:43:41 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Sep27.223146.26468@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1a4mdaINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>Fine.  When's the last time you observed an atomic nucleus, rather than some
>>effect caused by an atomic nucleus?
>>
>>>I think the claim was that the spirit itself cannot be
>>>scientifically observed *directly*.  Because of this, no amount of
>>>scientific explanation will *prove* it's existence.
>>
>>By the same argument, we can't *prove* the existence of atoms.  The evidence is
>>overwhelming, but it doesn't constitute *proof*.
>
>I think you're a little outdated here.  20 years ago, this was
>true and there was some debate about the actual existence of
>the atoms.  However, I seem to remember that scientists have been
>able to directly photograph atoms.  As a matter of fact, I quite
>clearly remember seeing their pictures.  Do you know of a way to do
>this for the soul? 

The "pictures" are not ordinary photos in the sense of the word.  What
I think you're talking about are electron tunneling micrographs which
create their pictures by detecting quantum tunneling effects of electrons
through the potential wells of atoms.  Photons aren't "bounced" off the
atoms, if that's what you mean by "proof" of existence.  Atoms and molecules
have never been observed directly by the ordinary sense of that phrase.
We "see" them only through an indirect physical process.

>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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


--
*Ka Chun Yu                * "I'm going down to Cowtown, the cow's a friend of *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu     *  me; he lives beneath the ocean and that's where  *
*But you should reply to:  *  I will be.  Beneath the waves, the waves..."     *
*kachun@vela.Colorado.EDU  *                                      --Cowtown    *
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Scud rockets hit Israel
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:37:36 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <1992Sep29.122245.1552@lin.foa.se> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

>Almost all of the population were in shelters. The purpose of said shelters
>being to protect the lives of those inside, it's no surprise that few died.
>The scud is a primitive missile with horrible accuracy ( it's pretty much a
>re-vamped V-2 missile). When used as it was during desert storm (i.e. fired
>without the rather lengthy preparation needed) you can be reasonably sure of
>hitting a middle-sized city.

No, we were mostly in sealed rooms of our own homes rather than
shelters, because it was believed that the main threat was chemical
warheads rather than having the scud land on you, and that there
wouldn't be enough time to get into the bomb shelter and seal it
before the chemical agent was dispersed.

The scuds that were fired at US troops were fired at much shorter
range, and so it's not surprizing that they had greater accuracy.
This, rather than bomb shelters, is probably the reason for the low
death toll.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     .. I don't understand the HUMOUR of the THREE STOOGES!!
 |warren@      
/ nysernet.org 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA
Keywords: chimpanzee,DNA
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:09:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.194408.6233@ims.com>, chapman@ims.com (Dave Chapman)
writes:
> Here is a reference for the claim that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA
> are 99% alike:
> 
> Evolution at two levels. Molecular similarities and biological
> differences between humans and chimpanzees. Science 188:107-116 (1975)
> King, M.C. and Wilson, A.C.
> 
> The point with the monkeys is that evolution survived another
> possibility for falsification. If humans and chimpanzees share a
> common ancestor in the "recent" past then they should share both
> morphological and genetic similarities. They do. Evolution has passed
> another test.

   And this weeks Science contains a report of a putative fossil member of
the chimp/human branch after the gorilla branched off.  Readable and mentions
dissenting views.  The fossils are from Hungary.

>Dave Chapman
Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:37:25 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <2735@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor) writes:

>Again, from what I understand, the person was supposed to bring their
>best first-born animal to be sacrificed in the temple, based on the income
>of the person

Jews used to both sacrifice their first-born animals and also bring
other animals under other circumstances.  Since first-born animals
were already reserved for sacrifice, they couldn't be used more than
once.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     On the other hand, life can be an endless parade of
 |warren@      TRANSSEXUAL QUILTING BEES aboard a cruise ship to
/ nysernet.org DISNEYWORLD if only we let it!!
From: dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David M. Utidjian Esc stnt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:32:03 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep28.013416.27338@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>
>Now I'm curious, what would *you* call the *average* human temperature?  

Well, how about we measure the entire population of the earth temperatures
constantly throughout the day and night for an entire year, then
*average* the results.

I will guess that it will be around 98.something degrees farenheit.

Now my questions are:

1	What does that tell us about the recent study you refer to?
	
1.1	If the average is different?

1.2	If the average is the same?

2	What does that tell us about "facts"?

3	What use will this comprehensive average be in diagnosing
	the health of an individual? Why?


You seem to be saying that because there is a *new* and presumably
*better* *average*, and we used the old one for so long, that this
somehow says something about facts.
So tell us, what does this study say about "scientific facts" other
than that they may change?

To me, and I think to many people, the "scientific fact" of the old
*average* was *true* for that particular study.  The new *average*
is *true* for that particular study.  The new average in no way,
shape, or form guarantees that any subsequent studies will come
up with the same average.  Even if one were to use the same sample
of people and do everything as indentically as possible.

All an average temperature of 98.something tells me, is that most
of the time most of the population will have a temperature at or
near 98.something.

>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

David Utidjian
"Don't sweat the technique!"
			Anon.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 4 Oct 92 00:24:46 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct2.224417.23923@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>You mean to tell me that certain logical conclusions don't fall
>>>into place for you if you accept the premise that a Supreme Being
>>>(god) created the heavens and the earth?

>>But knowing only that "(god) created the heavens and the earth" tells
>>me nothing of it's purpose or nature.
>
>I'll start you off...

OH BOY!  He gives us two total non-sequiturs:

>1) We are not alone in this universe.

Why should we believe he stayed around?  Or that he's paying any attention to
us?

>2) Someone created us, presumably for a purpose.
                        ------------------------
A second non-sequitur, though in this case, John *DOES* try to sneak in an
extra assumption as if it were in his original statement.

>Maybe I'll be curious and try to find out what that purpose is.
>
>3) <Come on, I know you can fill in the blanks> :)
>
>If nothing else, it certainly can change the way we look at the universe.

Judging from your case, it blinds us to the ancillary assumptions we're making.

>My point was to subject everyone to all the conclusions that it meant to me.
>I was only trying to show that just accepting that premise can lead one
>to question and search in areas that they might not have otherwise done.

Why?  There are a number of atheists involved in SETI.  Please note that, if
this hypothetical God should choose to try to communicate with us by mundane
means, then he's covered by SETI.  If he doesn't choose to communicate with us
by mundane means, then how do we go about searching?  Please try not to offend
too many people with different religions than yours when you give us your
unique answer to this question).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:55:49 GMT
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.

The story so far:

    1. Someone posts a piece of skepticism about the New Testament's validity.
    2. I reply, including a note that I don't believe Jews "as a race"
         are to blame.
    3. Gerry Roston responds by calling me (among other things) an anti-Semite.
    4. I reply that I'm very much in favor of the Jews.
    5. Various others take Gerry to task for his response.

Friends, what you may have forgotten (I had, until prompted by ...
well, never mind), but which Gerry no doubt remembers all too well
(whether consciously or not) was what happened around the Spring Break
timeframe.  At that time Gerry went through a period of <angst>, and
he posted a message which basically said:

        Since God doesn't exist, what's the meaning of life?

And I replied, in essence:

        If God doesn't exist, life is meaningless.

Not exactly the most sensitive, caring of responses, eh?  Certainly
not for someone who is obviously undergoing a crisis in his life,
right?  If I were him, I might have a hostile reaction to the name
"Lee Thomas" too.  I still believe what I wrote, but I now see that it
should have been written differently.

Gerry, I'm sorry.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation
Integrated Measurement Systems |  of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  LORD, my strength, and my redeemer."
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  - Psalm 19:14                 
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Keywords: crucifiction prophecy sacrifice hebrew
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:43:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.040823.4454@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>Surely you are not claiming that to undergo severe stress to the
>point of sweating blood, to be brutally scouraged (by Romans),
>having a crown of thorns placed on your head, then carrying a
>heavy cross for a good long way, and finally being nailed hand and
>foot to a cross is a recipe for lengthy survival.  I find it amazing
>that He lasted as long as He did.  In fact, I find it quite
>amazing that the Person who was nailed to the cross was alive at
>the time of the crucifixion! 
>

Nonetheless, victims DID routinely survive for days upon the cross.
Josephus tells of three victims who were "pardoned" and taken down,
at his request, and given medical assistance. One of them survived.
(He does not state the cause of death of the others, but they likely
died of gangrene.)



-- 
  
        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"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: KOSHER? In a Pig's Eye!
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:20:39 GMT

I apologize if this appeared before, but the server has been up & down a lot.

dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:

> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes in part:
>>|> 
>>|> Just using the wrong cup or something would have been a problem.  If
>>|> you had paid attention, you would have noticed your host was absolutely
>>|> insistent on getting the coffee, and left it at that.

>>|> >The point is, why is kosher still an issue today?

>>|> Why not?  What's your problem?

>>Excuse me, you just explained the problem:  complex rituals such as
>>"Just using the wrong cup would have been a problem" are irrational
>>and border on the neurotic.  If it were not based on the theory that
>>it was required by a supernatural being, this person would be
>>thought to be crazy.  It is also very rude to impose such silliness
>>on a guest.

>I do not believe that the host is being rude by enforcing certain rules
>concerning his property in his house.  Rather, the guest is rude by 
                                        ----------------------------
>knowingly violating them.  Added deprecation of the rules is insulting;
 ^^^^^^^^^ --------------
>since when is it the visitors' business how the host keeps his house?
 
>	David Pipes

The host I were strangers until that morning.  I hadn't the slightest
notion he kept Kosher.  As someone pointed out this is a situation of
culture clash.  Where I grew up in the plains (both parents raised on
farms), kitchens were social places.  When people got together, adult
guests would often pitch in to help in the kitchen, assisting the
hostess.  My intention in walking off to his kitchen holding a cup in
my hand was to save him the trouble.  As to particular house "rules"
there was no indication.  Prior to the kitchen incident I was not
even aware he was Jewish (although I did suspect it when he whipped
out the lax).

The china service was foam cups.  Surely this made for easier clean up
-- especially if trayf'd.

My original post didn't ask "is it right for people to keep Kosher in
their own homes".  It makes no difference to me what a person
practices in their very own home.  You could eat cats and dogs at home
-- or in public for that matter.  In fact, you can take my wife's
Poodle (please), and here's the tobasco :).  And Kosher is fine; no
problem there.  The following question remains to be answered: "Is
there a secular basis basis for the practice of keeping Kosher?"  That
is, what reasons are there other than "Because the Torah tells me so"?

There are some who think I said they are crazy for being orthodox.
That was a view given by a jewish friend that I shared.  And he did
not mean that orthodox people themselves are crazy, but was reflecting
on the practice itself.  The price of Kosher meat for example. :/)

C.W.R.

P.S. Steve, please do not cross-post to talk.animals.cruelty.for.dinner ;)



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: tattersall_derek@macmail1.rtsg.mot.com
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Organization: CSG Group
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:45:33 GMT

In article <1a0jrsINNqp7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Robert Clark) writes:
>
>
> Proponents of astrology have used the argument that the different
>gravitation pulls of the Sun and the Moon on the Earth at different
>times of the year could be used to explain the alleged differences
>in personality by birthdate. They cite the enormous gravitational
>influence of the tides to show how fluids on the earth, and by
>extrapoloation fluids in our bodies, are affected by astronomical
>objects. 
>  Critics have attacked this by saying you need tremendous amounts
>of mass to detect these _differential_ effects and by using statements
>like "the weight of the doctor has a greater gravit. effect on you
>at birth than the moon does." I've always bought these arguments.
>HOWEVER, the recent autumnal equinox has given me pause. I was looking
>at a picture of an egg balanced on its end and reading the caption to
>the picture which stated that only during the vernal or autumnal equinox
>may a fresh egg be balanced on its end, when I started wondering
>how such a small amount of mass can detect this effect.
>  We are finding more and more that conditions on the developing
>fetus during the early period of gestation have a great impact
>on future development. Even small alterations in the amniotic fluid
>during the first trimester can cause birth defects.
>   Can we be sure that the small variations in the gravitational pull
>exerted on our bodies during our gestation will have no effect
>on our future physical and mental makeup?
>
>
>
>                                                        
>                                                        -Bob
>
>
>P.S.
>     
>     A true skeptic never stops wondering and questioning.
>

I can balance an egg on its end at any time of the year. 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:50:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.111237.9016@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:

>A study could be done to determine if knocking on wood statistically changed
>the number of lottery tickets won by those knocking on wood as opposed to the
>control group.

Sounds familiar...

>
>A study could be done to determine if religious beliefs changed the cure rate
>for a series of terminal diseases.  (This has been tried, I believe.)

All that would tell you is how benificial to the human health is that set of
religious beliefs.  It does not tell you anything about the validity of those
beliefs unless that religious belief defined itself in terms of physical
health (which is extremely unlikely).

>
>Of course, you are correct in saying that eternal salvation cannot be tested
>for.  I agree with that.  But there are a number of issues that could be tested
>for.  Study the correlation between the size of the bank accounts of
>televangelists, who claim to save people, and the size of their television
>audience.  

All that would tell you is how genuine the televangelists are, not
how genuine their beliefs are.  Given any belief, I could probably
always find a group of people who publicly espouse those beliefs
and yet do not practice them personally.  That does not make the
religious belief itself invalid.

>
>You were proposing a scientific study of superstition.  If you limit yourself
>to proposing tests of religion in which no data can be collected, well of
>course the test is meaningless, which means we are dealing in opinion again. 
>Are you ready to  agree with that?

I was only observing that, at least in the cases we were talking about,
the superstitious beliefs could be scientifically tested but the religious
beliefs could not.

>
>GXKambic
>sd


-- 
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: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Idea for FAQ file
Date: 1 Oct 1992 13:01 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 <1992Oct1.072316.18641@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes...
> 
>Can people think of famous examples, in the past, when
>(b) The skeptic view was, in fact, proved wrong
> 
>    (eg. "X-rays are a hoax" Lord Kelvin 1900,  etc etc)

Is this really a good example?  All physics discoveries which turn out
to true are at first greeted with "skepticism."  Everyone starts mumbling "I 
don't believe it," until several (or many) experiments confirm the claim
of the original discoverer.  There is nothing unusual about that.  In the
case above, it just so happens that both x-rays and Kelvin are well known.

Did Kelvin actually do anything "skeptical" like studying the evidence or
doing any experiments before he concluded that x-rays were not real?  Or
was he just reacting in the way that all experienced scientists react to
the lastest announcement of something new and exciting which they know
from experience is likely just to fade away?

-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