HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lopresti@henson.cc.wwu.edu (lopresti robert)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: repressed memories, child abuse,etc
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:03:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Oct15.150341.21354
Organization: Western Washington University


Just to throw another story into this depressing pot, the AUtumn 92
issue of AMERICAN SCHOLAR has an article by Paul R. McHugh entitled
"Psychiatric Misadventures."  He talks about many different subjects, but 
one of them is Multiple Personality DIsorder (MPD).

	"Just as the divines of Massachusetts were convinced that they
	were fighting Satan by recognizing bewitchment, so the 
	contemporary divines - these are therapists- are confident
	that they are fighting perpetrators of a common expression of
	sexual oppression, child abuse, by recognizing MPD."

	"A woman called her mother to claim that she had come to realize
	that when she was young she was severely and repeatedly sexually
	molested by her uncle...The mother questioned the daughter carefully
	about the times and dates...She soon discovered that her brother
	[the uncle] was on military service in Korea at the time of the 
	alleged abuse...When she heard this new inforamtion the daughter
	seemed momentarily taken aback, but then said, "I see, Mother.  Yes.
	Well, let me think.  If your dates are right, I suppose it must have
	been Dad."  And with that she began to claim that she had
	been a victim of her father's abusive attentions, and nothing 
	could persuade her."

		(page 507-508)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler)
Subject: Re: Can quantum terminology be flakeproofed?
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:18:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.182823.1218@spectrum.xerox.com>, eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:
|> |> ...[stuff]...
|> Hmmm -- maybe Lao-tse, the Buddha, and the Hindus were right all along about the
|> fundamental nature of the universe. And they didn't even have particle accelerators -
|> just good observational skills and insight.

-<vehement exclamation starts here>-

Oh no, not _this_ again. Been reading the "Tao of physics", 
or the "Poncing wu li masters" have we?

-<vehement exclamation ends here>-

Eastern mysticism is no substitute for physics. Even if you want to believe
that Lao-tse, the Buddha, etc were "right", then it can only have been
by chance. They had NO way of observing quantum effects. There is NO
evidence that they did any rigorous science.

The insights they had were psychological at best. NOT physics.
-- 
+soluble fish+
"It's hollow, it goes on forever, and ... my God, it's full of shit!"
(apologies to ACC)

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis)
Subject: FUZZY UFOs
Keywords: fuzz
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: default
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:53:08 GMT

    I admit to my novice status in the reserching of so called UFO

phenomena. In the last day I have completed four books. It has turned
me into a doubting Thomas. The so called psyco UFO abductions which
only emerge after hypnosis are beyond the limit of even a open-minded
skeptic's tolerance for garbage. We are asked to believe that worn
spots on lawns are UFO landing sites. Indeed,I crossed three of these
circular anomolies mid campus this morning.
Further that certain "chosen" humans have been routinely abuducted
since childhood and in some cases sexually molested by these beings.
One would have to conclude after reading the backgrounds of these
chosen ones that extra-terrestrials are not particularly choosy in whoes
genes they allegedly are trying to clone.
        The so called "lost time" hypothesis has been touted by at
least two authors as the smoking gun of alien abduction    D
Last night I lost at least one hour falling asleep in my recliner!
I'm by no means an expert in hypnosis,but haven't people routinely
given some rather bizzare tales while under such manipulation of
consciousness? Haven't these tales been termed confabulation by

by many in the psychological profession?

Baah humbug!

This is the stuff of grade D made for TV movies.
--
                     Gary E. Davis WQ1F (On AO13)
        University of Vermont  Land Liner's dial 802-656-1916
 References " The Joys of Rumination Without The Cud", Elsie circa 1965
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: TV show with Out-of-body near-death experiences
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:51:44 GMT
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Sat10th or was it Sun11th, UK TV had a show about survival beyond death.
Started with a bit on spiritualism, went on to NDEs.
Stunningly poor from almost any viewpoint except the "I'd like to believe in 
this and now it's been on TV I can" one.
Eg various "hard to refute" events described.  Though most regulars on this 
   group would have had a field day.....
   Sceptical viewpoint mentioned but not really given a chance: just put in 
   for "balance", at a guess.
It was so poor I can't bring myself to describe it further!



              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:03:11 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1b2765INNbq3@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>Jan never said he sees life as meaningless.  He simply said he doesn't need no
>steenking "holy book" to tell him where to find that meaning.  I understand

Carl, I appreciate your support, but this phraseology is yours (at least
not mine,... I think).  I must admit that I came rather close to stating
life is "meaningless", namely in the sense that I don't believe that there
is any grand pattern or coherence  in  "life".  But I realize that I, like
many others (I guess), in trying to simplify my view on the world, attach
interpretations to impressions.  For example, when I see the smoke of a
small fire in the early morning, I'm reminded of the remainders of large
evening fires I built when I was a kid and also the smoke I saw once 
making a hike through the Tairoko gorge somewhere in 1971.  There is no
relation between these different smokes and also not between them and the
way these youth memories once cheered me up when I felt depressed.  Neither
has the typical turbulent behavior of quietly rising smoke from a 
cigarette or candle any relation with my efforts to understand Von Karman
vortex streets in 1965, and all the associations these have. For me
they have "meaning", but that's what I have put there myself.  I think
this is a different "meaning" from The Meaning of Life and The Universe
that other people talk about.

>that you've abnegated all responsibility for that sort of thing in you own

May I change that to "that you've constructed your responsibilities as based
on the Bible"?

>life, having chosen to accept what's said in one so-called "holy book" chosen,
>apparently, in ignorance of the existence of many competing holy books.  That
>doesn't mean that all of us are as pathetic as you.

Well, well, may I change that to: "all of us share your concepts of meaning."?

JWN

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Hill Abduction
Keywords: hill
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:42:10 GMT

In article <gdavis.719106329@griffin>, gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes:
|>  Would anyone care to tell me on what grounds the hill story
|> has been discredited? Yes,it sounds like some kind of psycho
|> reaction,but to totally discredit inconsistencies should be
|> found between the two victim's accounts or problems with their
|> locations at the time of the alleged incident.
|> If investigation has proved either fraud intended or not,lets hear
|> the evidence. (I understand Barney Hill is now deceased,but his
|> wife has done some "kooky" things since.
|> 
|> --
|>                      Gary E. Davis WQ1F (On AO13)
|>         University of Vermont  Land Liner's dial 802-656-1916
|>  References " The Joys of Rumination Without The Cud", Elsie circa 1965

See, perhaps, Phillip J. Klass, "UFO Abductions: A Dangerous Game" 
(Promethus Books, 1989) for a fairly careful treatment, including,
especially, the roll of publicity and media bally-hooing in the
development of the story.

As to the substance of the tale, there is no question that the 
mythology around the Hill story is blown all out of proportion, 
and that the alledged alien contact is almost certainly a fantasy.

The Hill story is not so much "fraud" as "fantasy".  Its not really
the Hills' fault if the media and public have made a huge deal over
what amount to fairly pedestrian psychiatric symptoms.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:28:49 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <13271@ntdd-1>, meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes:
=>You seem to be ignoring the fact that the smaller the body, the higher the
=>surface/volume ratio, hence the faster the percentage rate of evaporation of
=
=Is this the new math?
=
=>the comet.  I.e., small comets would be expected to have very short lives, so
=>it would seem unlikely that there would be very many small comets, compared to
=>large comets.
=
=In fact, the observational evidence is that "small" comets greatly outnumber
="large" comets.  But it all depends on your definition of "small" and "large".
=It has been many years since a "large" comet like West in 1976 came along,
=but dozens of small, telescopic comets are discovered every year.

=Furthermore, the cometary fragments responsible for meteor showers are
=extremely numerous.

And non-volatile.  We were discussing small bodies composed entirely (or almost
entirely) of volatiles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:52:51 GMT

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>Well, it was the wrong SIZE for a comet.  Cometary impacts are supposed to
>be real end-of-a-geological-epoch type disasters; and if the Tunguska object
>was PART of a comet, then why wasn't the rest of it spotted?  

This comment implies there exists such a thing as a RIGHT size for a
comet.  A comet like P/Halley, with a nucleus some 10 km across, can
produce a coma tens of thousands of km across and a tail millions of
km long.  The same features cannot be expected from a chunk of ice
only only tens of meters in diameter.  Also, objects near earth
tend to have high angular velocities and any window of visibility
would be brief.

>                                                            It would have
>been very close to the Earth.  Small volatile objects are kinda rare outside
>of Saturn's rings.

And Tunguska events are also kind of rare.  

Curt Roelle
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 10k Christians perform miracles ever so quietly
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:10:04 EST
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <BRUCE.92Oct6144017@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk>, bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>>>>>> On 6 Oct 92 07:37:29 GMT, alanrw@cs.man.ac.uk (Alan R Williams) said:
> 
>> The program was fairly horrific.  The "believers" threw a disabled man
>> out of his wheelchair and were generally maltreating him all because he
>> insisted that he still could not walk and they claimed that if he had
>> faith then he could!  In the end the police had to be called to rescue him.
> 
> I thought that was terrible too.  But to be fair, it did seem to be a
> very small proportion of the audience; for the most part it was
> believers crippling themselves voluntarily by getting up from their
> wheelchairs.
> 
> Followups set to sci.skeptic
> --
> Bruce Stephens

My personal experience with 'believers' has been fairly horrific.  When my
very devout mother was dying of terminal cancer, some of her church group
showed up and very accusingly told my sister and me that she would be healed
if we would only 'believe and pray for her'.   We were extremely exhausted
and grieving for our poor mother and these total strangers (!) were intimating
that the reason she was dying was because we didn't have faith!

Sue
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
Keywords: mars observer, citys or rocks, confirmation one way or the other, side bets
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:37:13 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct11.023854.6339@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|
|I've heard that same thing but you know, it really doesn't matter whether
|scientists of those days thought the earth was flat or not.  What did
|the common sailors and common folk think in those days.  How do you get a
|crew together to face their commonly held fears and brave the Atlantic?
|That is where I think that Columbus gets the credit, IMHO.

The sailors *knew* the Earth was round.  You can *see* ships dip below
the horizon in the distance (at least with a telescope, which they had).

No, the sailors' fear was a very real one - *food* and *fresh* *water*.
There were no known sources of either to the west, where Columbus was
proposing to sail.  And the *known* size of the Earth, along with the
(correctly) estimated size of Asia made it clear that, without a landfall
somewhere in between the ships they had could *not* carry sufficient
food to reach Asia.

Columbus, based on certain odd, inconclusive facts (drift wood, and so forth)
concluded that Asia was only a 'short' distance to the west, and that the
Earth must thus be smaller than everyone else had calculated.  (Note the
characteristic ear mark of the crackpot - a theory based on a few unexplained
items that completely *ignores* the vast quantities of contradictory
evidence).  he was both right and wrong - there *was* land there, it just
wasn't Asia.

So what about the famous mutiny attempt?  Well, that happened at about the
point they had used up half of thier supplies.  Think about it, you will
figure it out - they had *valid* reason to worry.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17621 talk.religion.misc:17830
From: stanley@verga.enet.dec.com ("Hail Eris", "All Hail Discordia")
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:09:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: engage.1992Oct7.182343.19945
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


>From:	DECWRL::"schumach@scofflaw.convex.com" "Richard A. Schumacher"  5-OCT-1992 20:15:53.24
>To:	verga::stanley
>CC:	schumach@scofflaw.convex.com
>Subj:	Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
>
>Really? OK, you're on. Same terms as with Joshua Geller, if you
>like, but you must announce it in sci.skeptic. One addition: the
>bet expires on 1 January, 2000. I don't want to have to keep 
>track of the bet for more than eight years.
>
>I'll even give you the option of demonstrating your confidence
>in your conclusion: you may adjust the odds if you like, keeping
>the amount of my wager at $100. Again you must announce this
>in sci.skeptic in order to accept it.
>
>Richard Schumacher

This is my announcement in sci.skeptic that I too am accepting Richard's bet.

Mary Stanley
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:34:52 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <BvqMGy.6uA@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au
(Paul Kinsler) wrote:
> 
> 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).

A nice theory, however it's very unhuman, God deliberately
makes sure that one person's life is destroyed forever (Judas).
I don't think this is the way the empathy of God works exactly.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Exploration is not Technology
Keywords: mars observer, citys or rocks, confirmation one way or the other, side bets
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:15:41 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct8.020918.25813@tamsun.tamu.edu> cjr6495@tamsun.tamu.edu (C J Rogers (Chris)) writes:
|In article <1992Oct7.213032.24367@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
|
|>Irrelevant.  Only a few non-skeptics believed the world was flat.  
|
|Not quite.  It may not be an accurate metaphor, but it does prove his point.
|The point being that people held one belief and were so unwilling to give a
|stroke of possibility to the opposition that they place money against it.

No, the point was that the *myth* that most people thought the world was
flat in Columbus' day is *false*.

In point of fact it was *common* *knowledge* at the time that the world
is a globe.  Only a small handfull of ignorant, opinionared fools thought
otherwise.  Not only was the world known to be round its diameter had been
calculated. And *this* is where C.C. disagreed with 'conventional wisdom'.
He had an estimate for the size of the Earth that was about 1/2 the size
others had calculated.  He was *wrong*, and the 'conventional wisdom' was
essentially correct (to the level of accuracy available to them).

|That is a lot of the problem that is surrounding the "face."  NO ONE KNOWS for
|certain what it is.  Everyone has ideas, but those aren't proof.  I think the
|big question is - will you be willing to accept the truth when it is 
|discovered?

Perhaps no one knows for *certain*, but the evidence that it is anything other
than a lump of rock is *very* weak.  It is so weak that I would not support
spending *extra* money to check it out any further.  Luckily for you, the
Mars probe is going to be in the area anyway, so taking a moment or two to
look at the rock from another angle will cost nothing.


-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct8.155416.19653@engage.pko.dec.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:24:40 GMT

He betrayed nothing, that's the whole point.
From: draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (E.J. Draper)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
Date: 9 Oct 1992 15:20:31 GMT
Organization: U.T.M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-XXMessage-ID: <A6FB0D616102019A@mdarpi1.mda.uth.tmc.edu>
X-XXDate: Fri, 9 Oct 92 10:20:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.205618.23681@odin.corp.sgi.com> Rod Beckwith,
rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com writes:
>It is the mindset of the skeptic that I am making reference to. The out &
>out denial of an issue before all the evidence is in. Taking the walk off
>of the well beaten path to discovery. Whether it be technological
>exploration,physical exploration,mental
>exploration,etc.,etc.,etc..................................

Incorrect.  This "mindset of the skeptic" as you define couldn't be
farther from the realities of (what I call) the skeptical movement. 
Being skeptical isn't about saying nay.  It's about asking for evidence
and evaluating that evidence scientifically.  It's about reducing the
amount of rubbish and nonsense that exists and living life honestly.

Something to consider:

If you're worried about:
>The out & out denial of an issue before all the evidence is in.

Then we're worried about:
The out and out ACCEPTANCE of an issue before all the evidence is in.


      |E|J-  ED DRAPER
 rEpar|D|<-  Radiologic/Pathologic Institute
             The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
             draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Organization: just me
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 18:48:14 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Oct9.104128.15001@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct8.155217.20940@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au>, keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:
>(But puts the wrong distribution on it.)
>> 
>> In article <LEET.92Oct2093956@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>> 
>>  . . . .
>> > I refuse to be so rash as to draw any conclusions about science
>> > teaching's effect on economic viability of a nation, since both Japan
>> > and the former USSR have taught evolution exclusively during this
>> > century, and have not performed similarly in the world marketplace.
>> > 
>> 
>> Not USSR. Evidently Marxist theory said something like ``you shouldn't
>> inherit anything from your parents, not even blue eyes'', so Mendelian
>> genetics, Darwinian Evolution and even modern breeding techniques were
>> thrown out. There is a book, title ``Death of a science in the Soviet 
>> Union'' plusminus ten percent, author unknown; or look up `Lysenko' 
>> in a detailed history of the USSR.

    Lysenko managed to take advantage of some purges in academia under
Stalin (amd maybe Beria?) - he convinced the Party that he could mutate
corn (maize) into wheat and the like with selective breeding programs.
He then got a post which allowed him to control the study of genetics in
the Soviet Union for 20-odd years, until the death of Stalin.  I may be
mistaken, but I believe he was actually put against a wall in the end
by Khrushchev.

    This was actually very good for the West, since the young Theodosius
Dobzhansky proceeded to pack up his theories and a few thousand fruit flies
and come to the US.  His research was among the best of this century in the
field of genetics.

    I believe that Lysenko was heavily influenced by the theories of 
Lamarck, with regards to the effects of environment of evolution.  Lamarck
believed that changes caused by environmental effects could lead to changes
in the genotype of the animal - would that be phylogeny recapitulating
ontogeny? :-)  (not really, I know...)

	David Pipes
robear@digex.com