HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Astrology: Scientific Research
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:02:57 GMT

banghartr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu (Rick Banghart, IPTV) writes:

[Much stuff deleted]

>>2) I don't believe that a strong correlation can be shown for the case
>>	of Astrology because human behavior is too difficult to
>>	quantify. Its hard to get good results with questionable data.

>I don't see this as a valid point.  Back in the '60s we would have
>called it a 'cop out.'  That determining a correlation is difficult
>is not the point.  There are many human behaviors that are easy
>to quantify and are unambiguous (e.g. marriage, divorce, birth,
>death, traffic accidents).    

But most of the claims of astrology deal with personality and abilities
of people which are harder to measure. I think even most supporters
will admit that astrology isn't very good at predicting specific events.

>BTW, I tried to respond to your personal e-mail, but so far it
>has bounced.

What address did you use?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Freewill (WAS: Re: Measurement & Precision)
Date: 6 Nov 92 08:52:31 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Nov5.050924.12080@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
[quoting me]
>>                                                 it so pleases me to
>>think that most other people suffer from the same illusion.
>>
>>JWN
>
>Me thinks you are confusing "freedom of action" and "freedom of will."

(1) An illusion is something that goes on between the ears.
(2) As announced, I will put this subject in my KILL file if it goes on.
Amuse yourself.

 JWN
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:24:40 GMT
	<1dkf91INNia8@gap.caltech.edu>,<1992Nov10.022121.25879@hfsi.uucp>
	<1dnl02INNo0c@gap.caltech.edu>
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.

>>>>> On 10 Nov 1992 06:31:30 GMT, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) said:

Carl> John, don't you realize that most of the schisms in the various
Carl> Christian churches have been over arguments as to who was
Carl> "following the teachings of Jesus Christ"? So I ask again, John,
Carl> in hopes that just once one of you Bible-thumpers might answer:
Carl> WHO DECIDES WHETHER SOMEONE IS "FOLLOWING THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS
Carl> CHRIST"?  You?  Lee Thomas?  The Pope?  A Jehovah's Witness?  I
Carl> rather doubt that the four of you could reach any substantial
Carl> agreement.  So John, please: GIVE US AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
Carl> OF CHRISTIANITY OR TAKE THE THREAD TO A NEWSGROUP THAT DOESN'T
Carl> CARE ABOUT WHETHER WHATEVER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HAS ANY
Carl> CONCRETE REFERENTS.

Although I'm reluctant to respond to someone apoplectic enough to get
their caps-lock stuck on, I'll give it a try anyway (in an attempt to
occupy until He comes again).  Operationally, a Christian is one who
would not deny Christ as Savior and Lord even under the threat of
death (I could tie in the 2nd Amendment discussion here, but won't).
Almost any one of the early creedal statements of the Church ("I
believe in one God, ...") should be adequate as a litmus test for
orthodoxy, when coupled with the threat of capital punishment.

As to officially separating the Christians from the non-Christians,
that won't happen during our lifetimes - so to speak.  Sorry, Carl.

--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "And he shall set the sheep on his right hand,
Integrated Measurement Systems |  but the goats on the left."  "And these shall
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  go away into everlasting punishment, but the
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  righteous into life eternal."               
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  - Matthew 25:33,46 THUMPITY THUMP THUMP THUMP!
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19057 rec.org.mensa:8005
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Astrology: Scientific Research
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:38:02 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

banghartr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu (Rick Banghart, IPTV) writes:

>I still maintain that the strong correlation (if it exists) points
>to _something_ happening that requires further examination.  Even
>if the mechanism is (for example) the tendency of people to 
>conform to astrological "information" about themselves.

   ..but that was the thrust of [someone long lost in the chain]'s
original comment that *without* finding some logical reason why
one item affects the other, the statistical correlation is only
weak evidence. If, after looking for the link, you can't find an
explanation, then you would normally reject the correlation as spurious.


Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:53:25 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU


Marc, 
You are obviously biased against guns.  You should, however, learn to
engage your brain before typing...

In article <1992Nov5.133648.1557@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

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

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

Within our society, children have limited rights.  They can not vote.
They are not allowed to purchase alcohol or drive cars.  BY the same
token, it is illegal in all states for a person under 18 years of age
to purchase a handgun.  Children of a certain age (I forget what it
is, 16 I think) are allowed to buy rifles and shotguns though, as
these are ostensibly for sporting purposes.

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

A convicted felons' right are not the same as a "ordinary" citizen.
They are prohibited from owning firearms, and I, believe from voting.

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

The worst you could be gotten for is disturbing the peace.  You are
not committing a crime, nor are you necessarily even planning one.
P.S., getting a license for a fully automatic weapon is not cheap.

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

In PA, even with a carry permit, you must carry concealed, otherwise
they get you for disturbing the peace.  To specifically point a gun at
a person (unlike #3) can be construed as attempted assualt.




--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Because experience witnesseth that eccle-
Field Robotics Center,          | siastical establishments, instead of main-
Carnegie Mellon University      | taining the purity and efficacy of Religion,
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | have had a contrary operation.  During almost
(412) 268-3856                  | fifteen centuries has the legal establishment
                                | of Christianity been on trial.  What have been
The opinions expressed are mine | its fruits?  More or less in all places, pride
and do not reflect the official | and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | servility in the laity, in both, superstition,
or any other organization.      | bigotry and persecution.  James Madison
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: CSICOP Announcement
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:47:22 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <1992Nov5.100623.9263@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>  
kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)  
writes:
> In article <40544@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, dnoelle@cs.ucsd.edu (David Noelle)  
writes:
[...] 
> [...]
> I believe that this campaign overlaps two groups, not only CSICOP, but  
also the
> Center for Free Inquiry, or something like that, a group I personally  
like
> somewhat less than CSICOP.  IS this a combined campaign or not?  I want  
to know
> where my money would be going.
> 
> GXKambic
> sd
They are the people who put out _Free Inquiry_.  Something like _The  
Humanist_ only with a libertarian bent.  I wondered if it was a mistake  
myself as plenty of skeptics are not into it but, of course, they need the  
money.

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"There is only one cause of poverty in the modern world:  failure to
 own an adequate supply of capital"
--Louis Kelso
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
From: jru@Comtech.com (Jimmy R. Upton)
Subject: Re: Jeane Dixon Predicts Bush Victory
Organization: Comtech Labs Inc, Palo Alto
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:00:46 GMT

In article <BD.92Nov9090751@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown) writes:
>
>>Now you have 16 people who know you were right in 6 of the last 6 
>>elections.  In 1992 you send them letters reminding them of your
>>infallible record, which they believe because they don't know about all
>>your failures.  You offer to sell them the 1992 election winner's name
>>for substantial money. I'd be surprised if you didn't get several
>>takers, because people don't understand the laws of chance.
>
>Yeah, but how many people would pay a substantial amount of money to 
>find out who the next president would be?
>
>The scam is not a bad idea, but instead of long term presidential 
>predictions, do it using stock market prices instead.  Predict the 
>direction of the Dow Jones movement correctly four years 
>in a row, and there are some people who might pay a lot for that 
>fifth yearly prediction.
>
>By the way - I have heard of this technique for a scam before.  Was it the
>plot of a movie, or something?
>-- 
>   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

There is an excellent book called "Innumeracy" written by John Allen Paulos.
He covers a scam based on this idea as well as other interesting situations
that result from having a populace that tends not to understand things
numeric - especially when it comes to probability.  I highly recommned the
book - very informative and entertaining.

Jimmy
jru@Comtech.com
From: u926135@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Adrian Hassall Lewis)
Subject: Re: Biosphere III?
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 05:21:35 GMT

ajackson@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Andrew William Jackson) writes:

[...]

>I was at the South Pole for most of last winter season (austral summer).
>As of last year the greenhouse there was not completed (it is quite 
>small BTW),but at the coastal station, McMurdo, there is a completed 
>greenhouse where they grow tomatoes and lettuce.  Walking into this lush, 
>green, very brighly illuminated space always cheered me up.  At the South 
>Pole green plants were the thing I missed the most (besides my girlfriend)
>and I think the completion of the greenhouse will greatly improve the 
>South Pole staion.

>ajackson@ernie.princeton.edu
>  

	I am rather suprised at this statement.  Under the Madrid Protocol
NO alien plants or animals are allowed in the Antarctic.  In fact the plants
that were at Australia's bases (for psycological reasons) have been removed,
and just this week 40-odd huskies were removed from Mawson.
	Mind you Britain has reneged on it's commitment to removing it's
dogs, and enforcement in Antarctica is a problem; so perhaps the US has also
decided to ignore the Protocol.

	Adrian Lewis

Adrian.Lewis@iasos.utas.edu.au
             ^^^^^ Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies
From: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Questions, old and new
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:40:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.YezTalW00XsFI=IFRe
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

All first-level quotes are from Andy Byler

>I think you have hit the nail on the head.  Who determines which
>scientist is reputable?  There are plenty of Scientists on both sides of
>this issue who are entirely reputable.

Bullshit.  Less than one tenth of one percent of scientists believe
that Creation is true.  The rest are staunch evolutionists.

>Aonsider also, the simple mathematical impossibility of Evolution.  It
>is such a wildly improbable thing that this world could have evolved
>through genetic mutations (mostly harmful or useless) that it is
>ridiculous to consider it.  It is also ridiculous to it is on the order
>of improbablility of a torando ripping through a large junkyard and
>creating a fully assembled 747 airplane from the piles of junk.

Byler, like I said in my previous post, stop parroting. There is a
driving force in evolution.  I'll grant you that if evolution were
totally random, you'd have a point.  It isn't, and you don't.

Yandros!  The only reason why I keep replying to your obviously
mis-informed posts is because I'm scared silly that someone who was
admitted to this very prestigious school hasn't the ability to examine
things critically and think, rather than repeat.  I know it's hopeless,
but Andy, PLEASE go take a couple of biology classes.  You _might_
just learn something.

David
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Legitimate but Trivial Anomalies ?
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:34:36 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1djn5gINNfke@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>>A good guide to further literature can be found in the articles by
>>C. de Jager & Rieks Jager, Koppeschaar, Ertel and F. Gauquelin in the 
>>Proceedings of the 3rd EuroSkeptics Conference 1991.
>
>Where do I find these proceedings?
You can order them from me.  I advertized them extensively two
months ago (at pre-publication price). 
>
>>Old issues of the
>>Skeptical Inquirer also can give a pretty good idea what the problem
>>is about (consult the 10 year index to the S.I.).
>
>Do they sell back issues?

Yes, each issue of the Skeptical Inquirer advertises in extenso 
the back issues they sell, even with a summary of table of contents.
The issues you want are: S.I. 4 (2),  S.I. 5 (Summer),  S.I. 7 (3).

In addition, the Zelen test is discussed in The Humanist 37 (6) (1977),
from Prometheus one may order "Dreams and Illusions of Astrology",
by M. Gauquelin (1979), and likewise M. Gauquelin's book "The truth about
astrology" (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1983) and his paper in 
Correlation 4 (1), p. 8-24 may give you an idea of his work, but
if you really want to have all the details, including the names and
birth places and birth dates/times of thousands of famous and not so famous
people, then one has to order the volumes from LERRCP (published around
1970-72) (Laboratoire d'Etude des Relations entre Rythmes Cosmiques et 
Psychophysiologiques) in Rue Amyot 8, F-75005 Paris France, which is also the
the residence of F. Schneider-Gauquelin. 
Of course, Gauquelin started to publish before 1970, see his L'influence 
des Astres (Dauphin, 1955, Paris) (if you can find it somewhere).

In Zetetic Scholar, around 1982, there has been an extensive discussion
about the Mars effect and the related Rawlins affair.

Ertel's analysis can be found in Journal of Scientific Exploration
2 (1988), p.53-82.


JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: aicklen@utdallas.edu (Greg Aicklen)
Subject: Re: Chi Kung?
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:41:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct28.221529.5394@walter.bellcore.com> kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner) writes:
>A Chinese-born friend of mine was talking about a remedy his grandmother
>uses to relieve various ailments (including a broken arm); she is in the

	...

>My friend is an extremely intelligent
>computer science/EE type, and believes in it.  I'm not as smart, and
>I am skeptical.  (He says that, as a child in China, he witnessed an
>exhibition of this art, in which the master could not be physically touched
>by those (his students?) around him.

	...

While there have been many studies of home and folk remedies by the medical
community, there has yet to be and probably never will be exhaustive testing.
BUT, the general consensus seems to be that most home/folk/paranormal remedies
operate on the principle that the majority of illnesses heal themselves ...
treatment often is irrelevant.  But that's not why I respond (after all, this
is certainly not my area)!

I just wanted to pass on the observation that, in the last five years or so
while I have been in graduate school, I have noticed that the VAST MAJORITY
of students from China, Taiwan, and India seem to believe (no questions asked)
in old remedies and mystical ways.  I can't count the number of times that
Ph.D. students (and several professors) with origins in the far east have
offered me odd remedies for coughs, sore muscles, headaches, etc.

This isn't just a silly bigot's point of view.  My two best buddies are far
easterners and I have been studying the culture and language of China for
several years, under the supervision of natives.  I have had extensive contact
with the Chinese and Indian community.

Of course, coming from the deep south (Baton Rouge, LA) I have my share of
relatives that believe in swinging dead cats around in the dark and ... well,
not that bad, but the remedies that I survived in growing up were pretty
awesome.  Still, the majority of folk from "down home" use asprin and other
over the counter remedies and see a physician when the going gets tough.

So I am AMAZED at the stories, testimonials, etc. that I hear from my eastern
pals.  Let me make my point clear:  skepticism and challenge of authority in
the area of folk remedies and superstitions (luck, FengShui, etc.) are almost
non-existant in many of the well educated easterners that I have met in the
last five years.  These guys don't even THINK about asking questions, it's
just the way things work.

The interesting thing is, they should all fit in well here in the States!

Greg (don't take me TOO seriouly) Aicklen
aicklen@utdallas.edu
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 13 Nov 1992 01:38:22 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:

>It seems to me that the most natural mode of human behavior is to act in
>one's own self-interest, without particular concern for others.  If this
>is true, any philosophy that requires self-sacrifice for a greater good is
>useless to the extent that it requires self-sacrifice.  

I disagree.  I think that a natural morality exists.  It is an instinct--a
product of evolution that allowed humans to live in groups, thus greatly
increasing their survival rate.  Of course, in effect (in the long run at
least), acting in regard to others is in your best interest, or else you
won't get the things you want.

>I don't like this (though I can't produce a plausible denial of it); I
>would prefer a world where everyone makes as great an effort as they can
>to help others before themselves.  If you consider this behavior
>desirable, then Christianity (as commonly interpreted today) has a lot
>going for it; it asks you to give till it hurts, but helps you not to be
>overwhelmed with guilt when you fall short.

No, I think that it is a good idea to be thinking of the community when
you act, but Christianity is still garbage.  Of course, it does seem
to scare some people (who would not otherwise) into being moral (this
is debatable), but it probably causes more problems than it solves.
Sort or like being addicted to nose spray or something.  It
is great for a while, but if you get addicted to it, the simple lack
of the substnace causes the very symptoms you were trying to get rid
of in the first place.  I think Christianity works in this same way.  It
becomes self-propogating.  Not practicing it leads to the same guilt you
were trying to avoid when you converted.  People should find some other
way of crutching themselves emotionally, one that is less psychologically
harmful.

[Bastardization of English lanuage deleted]

keith

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19116 alt.paranormal:2455 alt.alien.visitors:8075
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Does matter exist?
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:17:26 GMT
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

Before you ask that question:

What do you mean by "matter"?

Solan
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 9 Nov 1992 00:42:11 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu