HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: misc
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:41:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

>The reason it keeps raising its ugly head is simple. It's because there are
>two issues and only one issue has ever been addressed.
>
>The issue that has been addresed is that NOW life is HERE there is no
>contradiction between entropy and biological systems, as energy is
>being soaked up from the sun. And I think everbody accepts this.
>
>The issue that has not been addressed is the STARTING of life, in a
>universe of increasing entropy. For this you have to postulate some
>sort of "bootstrapping" action.
>
>And it is very difficult to understand how the "bootstrapping" happens
>out of a chaotic primordal stew.
>
>Any ideas? So that we can finally put this monster to rest.

I don't really understand this.  The first issue you mention is the refutation
of the belief that "evolution cannot occur because it requires an increase
in organization, in violation of the law of entropy".  Easy to refute: the
law of entropy discusses a closed system, and the Earth is always receiveing
energy from outside sources (incl. the Sun).  

The second issue you discuss is how life could have occurred in the first
place, because if increasing entropy.  The answer is identical: the increase
in organization required for molecules to increase in complexity until they
become "life" is "powered" by the Sun, by various forms of radiation, and 
stuff like that.  It's essentially the same situation as the first issue
you mentioned.

I know, it sounds weird if one phrases like "shining the sun on a primordial
stew will result in life".  It's no weirder than the thought that the applic.
of energy -- the energy of a hard worker -- can convert a pile of wood into
a house.

















-- 
Is the P.C. movement really Neo-McArthyism?  Perhaps that's true,
but that's just as true about the Anti-P.C. movement!
---------- Animesh Karna wuz here! --------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Sensible interpretation of the unknown (was: I don't know).
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:18:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.092904@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
}In article <1992Apr8.170554.7595@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM},
}kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:

}} This is why I have never
}} understood the atheistic viewpoint. There is no way an atheist could
}} have reached his viewpoint based on any real knowledge. The atheist's
}} viewpoint is based on a lack of knowledge (If I can't see it, it
}} doesn't exist). The only really correct viewpoint in this case is
}} agnostic (I don't know).
 
}   You seem to ignore the best point of view :) 
 
}   Things that are implausible and untestable are worthless.  The second
}something becomes testable, it gains worth.  The atheist (I'm not one)
}equates the worthlessness of God by my standard with his nonexistence.  
}Everyone who beleives in God finds him to have some positive or negative 
}worth :-).

Just because we don't understand something well enough to test it,
doesn't make it worthless. There are plenty of people who use
intuition everyday to better their lives, but couldn't tell you
how it works or how to test it.
 
}} It is the nature of science to require proof before asserting something
}} as a fact. But, we cannot overgeneralize this principle to mean that if
}} you can't prove it, then we know it doesn't exist.
 
}   If we don't know if it exists then the sensible default assumption is that
}it doesn't exist.  This is because the nature of our perception of reality
}is such that almost all new things we imagine do not and can not exist.  The
}assumption of nonexistence should be tested whenever resources allow, 
}certianly.  The extensive negative results and weak positive results for psi
}indicate the current sensible assumption about psi is that it doesn't exist.
}Stay tuned, keep an open mind? yes!  Give psi one shred of creedence?  Not 
}yet (maybe this summer).  I invite you to hold your breath.

It may be a sensible default assumption for you, but for me it isn't.
I have personal experiences that tell me different. I also will keep an
open mind to alternative explanations for PSI. Not just any alternate
explanation, but ones that make sense and explain my experiences for
me.

 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: cosmicaug@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Hysterical Jesus:  HELP!!
Date: 17 Apr 92 07:38:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: vax1.1992Apr17.013803.1740
Organization: Mankato State University

In article <1992Apr16.152419.24366@sei.cmu.edu>, dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
> 
> 
> Help!!!!
> 
> Of late, my brother has become a fanatical follower of Jack van Impe
> and his "end time prophecies"*.  While my brother normally is a
> rational person, he has taken van Impe's message to heart to the
> extent that he has altered his world view, has taken to praying for
> the souls of his family and friends, and (most significantly) is
> attempting to convert everyone with whom he comes in contact.
> 
> My impression of van Impe is that he does for religion what Lyndon
> Larouche does for politics.  I am certain that his logic is based on
> flawed assumptions, dubious evidence, and disingenuous reasoning.  I
> am also certain that his claims will not stand up to scrutinization.
> 
> Can anyone out there point me to books, a FAQ list, or other
> literature where van Impe's claims have been dissected?  If this topic
> has come up before in this forum, I would appreciate the forwarding of
> any relevant posts.  I am most interested in countering van Impe's
> specific claims, rather than peripheral issues such as the
> authoritativeness of the bible and divinity of Jesus.
> 
> Any help will be gratefully appreciated.
> 
> --Dave Wood
> 
> * In the event that this topic has not come up before, van Impe's
> claims (which appear to mutate conveniently based on current world
> events) center around the signs of the impending return of Jesus
> around the turn of the century.  These signs include such evils as the
> European Economic Community, UPC product symbols, credit cards, and so
> forth.   While none of this stuff is new, van Impe evidently has a
> special skill in coming across as an intelligent, learned man who
> actually has a clue.

        My favorite "claim" is the one about the antichrist being king Juan
Carlos de Borbon y Borbon of Spain. He speaks obviously in an obvious attempt
to offer "evidence" supporting that the king is the antichrist (such as the
order of entry of spain in the E.E.C., a title over the Holy land by Spain a
few hundred years ago and other exciting pieces of evidence). I originally
wrote claim in quotation marks because he follows it with a statement saying
that he isn't really saying that the king is the antichrist after all (though
he doesn't explain why he seemed to be saying otherwise a few seconds ago).
        I have also obvserved the same pattern when he talks about other topics
--like seemingly narrowing down the date of the second coming to 1996 and then
disavowing comitment any that year as the date of the second coming (though
lately he seems to have moved the date up to 2000, what appeal round numbers
seem to have).                                       
        Please excuse my lack of useful information in this reply. Hopefully
someone will send something useful.
        Sorry about your brother.
--August Pamplona 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Sensible interpretation of the unknown (was: I don't know).
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:30:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.060139.13238@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.011318.6261@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Apr9.092904@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>
>>>The extensive negative results and weak positive results for psi
>>>indicate the current sensible assumption about psi is that it doesn't exist.
>>
>>Here I agree with you.
>
>What extensive negative results are you folks talking about?  The context
>"weak positive results" suggests reference to experimental work, but I
>wonder if you can point to research that justifies your statement.  In
>particular, I know that many experiments addressing "psi" produce null or 
>even negative results, but this is true in any research domain that is
>not trivial, and in the case of psi research, quantitative reviews in
>several sub-categories show consistent replication of positive findings
>that outweigh the null/negatives even after consideration of the
>influence of quality variations, the "filedrawer", and non-homogeneity.

No, Roger.  I was responding in a thread in which some people (e.g., Kraus)
were making claims about psi at levels that are far above those ever observed
in ANY controlled setting.  In that context, we do, indeed, have extensive
negative results (i.e., there's never been a "psychic" who could live up to his
claims under controlled conditions), and NO positive results.

>Or were you merely agreeing genially on an opinion that has no
>substantial foundation?

You know, if the meta-analysis you're so fond of referring to showed as little
consideration for context as you do, I'd have to consider it pure bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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: jasonh@aeras.uucp (Jason Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Humanoids On Mars (Again)
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:04:54 GMT
Reply-To: jasonh@aeras.UUCP (Jason Harris)
Organization: Arix Corporation, San Jose, CA.

In article <1992Apr2.151638.28297@watserv1.waterloo.edu> rlbell@hertz.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell) writes:

>The general form that an alien must have is not at all difficult to establish
>by extrapolation of terrestrial forms.  The only way to get enough nuerons
>together to evolve into a brain is to concentrate sensor organs in one place;
>therefore, all alien intelligences will have a head. 

Why do you need the bulk of the neurons to be centrally located? Why not 
distribute the intelligence mechanism throughout the body. So long as this
is sufficiently redundant so as not to cause vulnerability to attack there
should be no problem with this. It may even be advantageous in some 
environments.

I personally would be suprised if intelligent aliens all turn out to be
humanoid. Ones that evolved in environments similar to our own may have
evolved similar physiological solutions, but what about the intelligent fish,
the intelligent arthropods and the intelligent gas bags. And what about the
virtual beings, ie: those guys that have given up all vestiges of literal form
and now exist only as computer simulations in a self maintaining super
computer powered by a fusion reactor!

Come On! Use your imagination! This "well they're probably just like us"
stuff is reminiscent of earth centered universes. I expect that the 
universe has plenty of suprises in store for us.

*******************************************************************************
Jason Harris (22,Leo,ElectronicE)
 an ex-resident of Perth, Western Australia, lately of Milpitas, California

E-MAIL: apple.com!aeras!jasonh 
SNAIL-MAIL: Arix Corporation, 871 Fox Lane, San Jose CA, 95131 USA
VOICE-MAIL: (USA) 408-922-1839

I don't think. Therefore I am.
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Endo- vs. exo-heresies (was Re: Consensus: Too Sluggish or Too Hasty?)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 15:21:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:

>In article <=gxj25+.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>
>>As an aside, I have just been informed, in all due seriousness, that recent
>>polls indicate that some 80% of the American populace believe UFOs have
>>other than "mundane" explanations (i.e. are extraterrestrial in origin).
>>

>I'm a bit skeptical of the percentage quoted. Was the "i.e. extraterrestrial
>in origin" also in the question?  I would be surprised if 80% of all
>American adults knew what was meant by "extraterrestrial".
>Maybe the number 80% is a misinterpretation of "1 in 80" (this type of
>mistake is not unheard of).

Unfortunately, all I know about the survey is what I was told, which is
basically what I related.  The person did use the term "extraterrestrial"
when he told me of the poll.  I intend to question him further on just
*where* this poll was taken, etc.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the results were misrepresented.
-- 

Anson Kennedy
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

                  "If I had been the Virgin Mary, I would have said 'No.'"
                                      -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
From: schupbach@uservx.plk.af.mil
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Help me save some "believers"
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:47:50 GMT
Organization: Phillips Laboratory - Kirtland AFB


	Can someone e-mail me how to do the key/spoon-bending tricks?  My
brother-in-law and his wife are borderline "believers" and a guy "proved" he
was psychic by bending a key and a spoon.  They are pretty convinced because
the items never left their sight and belonged to them (not supplied by the
psychic).  I'm trying to show them other explanations for their paranormal
experiences.

	Thanks for your time.  
	Skeptic-in-training,
	Mike Schupbach.
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: misc
Date: 6 Apr 92 08:08:29 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Apr6.045504.7928@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.095445.3924@bb1t.monsanto.com> lhbran@bb1t.monsanto.com writes:
>>
#>       The thermodynamic argument for creationism is bogus, bogus, bogus.

#The reason it keeps raising its ugly head is simple. It's because there are
#two issues and only one issue has ever been addressed.
#
#
#The issue that has not been addressed is the STARTING of life, in a
#universe of increasing entropy. For this you have to postulate some
#sort of "bootstrapping" action.
#
#And it is very difficult to understand how the "bootstrapping" happens
#out of a chaotic primordal stew.
#
#Any ideas? So that we can finally put this monster to rest.

I don't know much about primordial stew; now it seems to be `chaotic'
in accordance with the latest mathematics fads.  But in the time
before there was `life as we know it' the Sun was already there,
pouring enormous amounts of 5000K radiation on the Earth; moreover,
radioactivity from the Earth's interior (left over energy from a
supernova explosion billions of years before the birth of the Solar
system) was fueling the rock-formation engine. 

Cairns has conjectured that self-replicating systems originally 
consisted of a combination of clay minerals (abundantly present
because of the cooperation between climatic weathering (Sun-driven)
and orogenesis (radio-activity driven)) and protein-like substances.

Not much is known with certainty, of course.  However, D.A. seems 
still to miss the point about entropy: it only makes sense to talk
about entropy of closed systems.  In a system (Sun-Earth) in which
there is a gross thermodynamical imbalance the conjecture that each
subsystem will show entropy increase (whatever that means) is not
even remotely justified.

So the second question of D.A. is just one other creationist
challenge: `adherents of evolution must explain the beginning of
life, and if they can't then evolutionary theory is all wrong'

To this challenge one might answer that there is no obligation
to come up with such an explanation.
Science doesn't pretend to know everything, unlike certain 
metaphysical types who rather have any explanation, even one
with only religious writings - or channelled knowledge - to
back it up, than say honestly : "I don't know, but would like
to."

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hsr4@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Psychics follow the signs...
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:00:08 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

Seen on a lampost outside my house: a sign saying "Psychic Convention This Way".

How come visitors never know where it is ?

Or even when it is ?

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Peter G. Q. Brooks HSR4@UK.AC.OX.VAX |                                     |
| Health Services Research Unit        |   Bill Stickers Is Innocent, OK ?   |
| Dept of Public Health & Primary Care |                                     |
| University of Oxford                 |                                     |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8066 rec.music.classical:5806
From: eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Album by bizzare British spiritualist
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:57:56 GMT
Reply-To: eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennesee, Knoxville
NNTP-Posting-Host: cupid.cs.utk.edu

In article <1992Apr13.161316.7018@psych.toronto.edu>, stephan@psych.toronto.edu (Stephan Hamann) writes:
|> 
|>  I've been going crazy trying to find information on a bizzare British
|> lady spiritualist who claims that she communicates with long-dead composers.

That's Rosemary Brown.

|>  I don't know her name, but I do know that a) she is a decent amateur
|> pianist who at one time performed these dictations in public, and b) that

I thought part of her claim to veracity was that she was a rather bad
pianist, and that therefore the pieces, some of which are rather hard,
had to be real. 

I've never seen the recording, but my local music library
had the book of piano pieces that she released. Most pieces were rather bland,
but 'Jezus walking on the waves of lake ... ' by Liszt was fun,
and the piece by Liszt that has 5/4 in the one hand and 6/4 in the other
was quite challenging to play, although not too rewarding. The Beethoven
and Chopin pieces in that book are worthless.

Through the library you may also find her (auto?) biography.

|> Stephan Hamann

Victor.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8093 rec.music.classical:5846
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Album by bizzare British spiritualist
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:55:02 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <1992Apr14.141926.4987@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umrutko0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:
>Well, not quite worthless.  They ARE interesting curiosities.  I have a
>copy of the album, and it's definitely a collectors' item.  She is not
>a very good pianist, it's true, and the preamble to the record is

Ah!  So what we need now is to hear the pieces played by a first-rate
pianist.  :-)
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rodger@Cadence.COM (Rodger Hughes)
Subject: LaserVision Glasses Stopped
Summary: Federal court stops distribution of LaserVision Glasses
Keywords: LaserVision 
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:59:59 GMT

Just an update on the LaserVision Glasses.  Last night on the
CNBC Network David Horowitz reported that the US Postal Inspector asked
for an recieved a federal court order stopping the distribution for money
of LaserVision Glasses.  Basically these glasses are just a scam (and an
old one at that.)  Unfortunately these glasses are sold under many
different names and through magazines and newspapers as well as
television, the court order only stops the distribution of LaserVision
name brand.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Rodger Hughes 	rodger@cadence.com   (408)894-3099
San Jose, California U.S.A.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Humanoids On Mars (Again)
From: geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz (Geoff McCaughan)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:37:45   M
Organization: The Equinox Network CHCH NZ (Node SATORI)

jasonh@aeras.uucp (Jason Harris) writes:

> Come On! Use your imagination! This "well they're probably just like us"
> stuff is reminiscent of earth centered universes. I expect that the 
> universe has plenty of suprises in store for us.

In looking beyond the solar system, it's instructive to reflect on the
diversity we've found on the worlds *in* the solar system. Of all the
planets and moons explored by Voyager et al, every one was in some way
unique.

I expect our explorations of alien life forms to be no different.

| Geoff - Sysop Equinox (equinox.gen.nz) +64 (3) 3854406 (4 Lines)
| Email:  geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz
|         "If I post something lucid, is that satorial eloquence?"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: misc
From: geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz (Geoff McCaughan)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 19:44:39   M
Organization: The Equinox Network CHCH NZ (Node SATORI)

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

> The issue that has been addresed is that NOW life is HERE there is no
> contradiction between entropy and biological systems, as energy is
> being soaked up from the sun. And I think everbody accepts this.
> 
> The issue that has not been addressed is the STARTING of life, in a
> universe of increasing entropy. For this you have to postulate some
> sort of "bootstrapping" action.
> 
> And it is very difficult to understand how the "bootstrapping" happens
> out of a chaotic primordal stew.
> 
> Any ideas? So that we can finally put this monster to rest.

I suppose you "know" the answer to this one too, and you're just
"testing" us again.

Of course the answer is very simple, but since you know it already I
won't bore you with the details.

| Geoff - Sysop Equinox (equinox.gen.nz) +64 (3) 3854406 (4 Lines)
| Email:  geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz
|         "If I post something lucid, is that satorial eloquence?"
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Was Burt Stitched Up?
Keywords: Sir Cyril Burt, accusations of "fraud".
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:53:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA


	As of late, Sir Cyril Burt has been having some defenders, who
charge that he had merely been careless, as in his using the same
correlation coefficient in papers purportedly describing studies of
more and more twins. But I don't see how monumental carelessness means
that Burt's record is now spotlessly clean, as some of the exculpation
would seem to imply. Either way, much of his work is worthless.

	As to the two women who had worked with him and who are now
claimed to have existed, have either of them stepped forward, if they
are still alive? Has anyone found anyone who had known them in
exquisitely personal detail? I can't believe that they could have been
hushed up for so long, especially as the scandal has been around for
at least 15 years or so.