HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Orthodox Judaism (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 5 Oct 1992 15:36 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 <2044@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes...
> 
>In one of his books (either "Surely Your Joking Mr Feynman" or "What
>Do You Care What Other People Think?") Feynman tells of an Orthodox
>Jewish Scholar (OJS) who asked him "Is electricity fire?".  Feynman
>tried to explain some basic physics, and then discovered that the only
>reason the OJS wanted to know was to find out whether God would be
>annoyed if he used electricity on the Sabbath.  Using fire is banned
>in the Torah, so the OJS needed to know if electricity fell under this
>rule.

There are many other cases of new technology which have raised strange
but interesting questions to Jews who are trying to cope with the modern
world and their religious proscriptions.  I recently read an article about
the disagreements going on in Israel about the use of the computerized 
timers which can be built into televisions, VCRS, coffee pots, etc.  If
you sit down in front of the TV at 2:00 PM on the Sabbath and the TV happens
to come on (with your favorite program) due to prior programming, have
you violated the Sabbath?  You have done no work on the Sabbath - but on the
other hand, the spirit of the law certainly seems to have been violated.
Is it right to use modern technology to elminate the inconveniences which
your religious laws impose upon you?  

We use modern technology all the time to enhance, or ease, our religious 
experiences -  we light our Temples with electric lights, use mass printed 
bibles, fly airplanes to make pilgrimage to the Holy Land, etc.  Why not use 
the timer in your Microwave to have a hot fresh meal on the Sabbath?  

Don't ask me.  I don't have the answers.

-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
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientific facts
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:50:10 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Sep29.185129.31476@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>In article <1aa443INNe2l@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

[all sorts of arguments about thermal mass, heat transfer, etc]

The whole argument is moot.  When I take my son to the hospital for
whatever, they measure his temperature instantly.  A detector of
some kind (infra-red, I assume) is inserted into his ear for a
moment.  An accurate measurement of the temperature inside his
ear is then returned.  This is probably as close as the temperature
of the brain as you can easily measure without making your own holes.
The temperature of the brain is as good an indication of body temperature
as anything else.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier						Mitel Corporation

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 27 Sep 1992 17:21:59 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep25.164716.17410@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
=>: You see all religious beliefs in a certain light.  Do you expect
=>: everyone to see it the same way that you do?
=>
=>Yes, I see all religious beliefs in certain light.  I expect
=>_rational_ people to see that all religious beliefs are pretty much
=>equally bogus.  Some religions are a little more pragmatic than others
=>when it comes to getting on with life, but there still isn't any
=>verifiable basis to most of the beliefs.
=
=Indeed, so all people who have genuine religious beliefs are
=irrational according to your statement.  How very sad. :(
=
=>
=>In direct answer to your question, no, I do not expect everyone to see
=>it the same way I do.
=
=You just called all people who didn't see all religion as equally bogus:
=not _rational_.  The above statement is in direct contradiction to this.

Er, no, it's not John.  He'd have to be crazy to expect everyone to be
rational.
=>What is "spiritual hunger"?  A need to belong to a social group?  The
=>need to feel that your life isn't meaningless?  Fine, join a club,
=>join the Peace Corps, join the army, take up a hobby, have a family,
=>whatever.  Or admit that your life _is_ meaningless, mine is!  I like
=>my life just fine, but I have no illusions that there is some great
=>meaning or purpose for it.
=>
=>If people spent less time worrying about their last life or their next
=>life, maybe their current life would be better.
=>
=
=There are plenty of people who are in the Peace Corps or army, have hobbies
=or families and still have their spiritual needs met by religion.  I think
=you are confusing social needs with spiritual needs.  

Perhaps because we haven't seen a definition of "spiritual needs"?  He *DID*
ask you for a definition.  Is this another of those things like a "soul" that
can't be defined, but it exists because you want it to exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:50:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.144633.13616@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.213955.23389@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> 
>>The soul has a gift called free will.  It can choose to do things
>>that are contrary to God.  Remember, because it is *like* God
>>(i.e. have similar properties) this does not make it God.
>>Therefore, there is no guarantee that all of its actions are what
>>God would want that person to do.
>
>This is one point which I have been unable to resolve. That is, it is
>said that god answers all prayers. Unless the answer is always 'no',
>how can god answer prayers involving personal matters without infringing
>upon the free-will of others? Or in larger matters, suppose one prays
>that the niners win. Since there is no evidence that god affects the
>physical world directly, the only way to affect the outcome of the
>game would be to affect the players directly. In which case god must
>be playing fast and loose with their free will.
>
>What gives? 

This is all my personal belief:

I strongly believe that God *never* enfringes on our free will.  I
believe that sometimes he makes ideas clearer (grace, for this
discussion) to us but that we are always free to reject them.  For
example, if I know someone who has a problem stealing, then I
might pray for that person.  Now God might enlighten that person
so that they realizes that it is wrong to steal or help them if
the stealing is compulsive so that they are able to overcome this
behaviour, but *only* with the cooperation of their will.  If they
are unwilling to stop and cooperate with the grace that has been
given to them, then God will not infringe on their free will.
This is why it is never a good idea to judge anyone because we
never have the full picture as to what grace that person had at
the time.  Only God knows that and can make a determination as to
how sinful a particular action actually is.

As an aside, IMHO, I don't believe that God favors one sports team
over another.  And why would any player want this?  After all, if
they knew that the only reason they won a particular game was
because God bent the physical rules for them or made the opposing
team play suboptimally, then where is the merit in winning the
game?  I can see a player asking God to help them play to the best
of their ability at the time, however...

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


-- 
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: gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientific facts
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:51:49 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
  Computing Services C-1012
  1455 De Maisonneuve West
  Montreal (Quebec) H3G 1M8
  "sci.skeptic"
  "rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) "
  "29 Sep 92 18:51:29 GMT"
  <1992Sep29.185129.31476@mp.cs.niu.edu>
X-Tel: (514) 848-7632
  Fax: (514) 848-7622
Originator: gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca

Neil Rickert writes [*]:
> ...
>>Certainly:  The rate at which heat is conducted between a source and a sink
>>is proportional to the difference in temperatures of the source and the sink.
>>...
>Your mistake is to think of the thermometer as the sink and the tongue
>as the source.  Actually the sink includes the tongue and other parts
>of the mouth, as well as the thermometer, and the source is the interior
>of the body.

And your mistake is in not knowing where to place a division
between source and sink.  You say that the heat source is the
interior of the body;  therefore the sink must be the at the
boundary of interior and exterior.  But then you claim the the
tongue is also part of the sink.  Do you claim that the tongue
is exterior to the body?

The thermometer can measure only the heat at its bulb, i.e.
whatever surrounds it (in this case, mouth tissue).

>The rapidity of rise of the thermometer is not measuring the body
>temperature, but the rate at which blood is being pumped to the periphery.

If you want to measure blood flow, don't use a thermometer.
-- gk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: skeptic book at a special price
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:14:19 GMT

In article <5656@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes in part:
|> The last word about the famous
|> Mars effect of Gauquelin [....]

Now THAT is an extraordinary claim!
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:46:43 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox

In article <1a911tINN82t@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep28.132929.1293@spectrum.xerox.com>, eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:
|> >Though no proponent of astrology, I have to admit to the existence of an intricate web of
|> >causality in day to day life. It is truly difficult to see how even the smallest action
|> >can precipitate seemingly momentous events. Yet, with all the research in Chaos
|> >theory pointing to the "butterfly effect" (sensitivity to initial conditions), and
|> >the impossiblity of projecting things like the stock market or climate, it has to
|> >make one think.
|> 
|> Hmmm.  Of course, the whole point of chaos theory is that these large effects
|> caused by small changes are inherently unpredictable.  Why is it that damned
|> near anything that's at best partially understood by the layman ends up getting
|> dragged in (inappropriately) to support things like astrology?

My personal opinion is that astrology is total bull****. If you saw any note of support
for astrology in my post, you obviously missed the point. Didn't my post also mention
"the impossiblity of projecting things?" All I did was note that it is impossible to
ignore _causality_, even at the most seemingly trivial level.

|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 27 Sep 1992 16:45:55 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep22.222855.6089@panix.com>, pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>No, this isn't just another way of saying (d). Let's face it, we
>don't teach people mathematics in hope of another Ramanujan, or even
>another Hilbert, Hardy or Vaughn Jones. Not even, for the most part,
>to get more math professors. We teach people mathematics as a tool to
>use in other disciplines, many of them respected and lucrative.

Actually, for the most part, we simply don't teach people mathematics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Subject: Sai Baba Info Wanted
Organization: very little
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 08:33:51 GMT


Can anyone point me in the direction of some info on an
Indian guru named Sai Baba?  (I think I spelled that correctly).

I recall seeing some discussion on here about him, and recall
something from Skeptical Inquirer or Skeptical Notes recently
about a debunker from India who has written about him, but
I can't find the article.


-- 
 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  206-527-4089  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544   
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   3288544@mcimail.com 
              |  Internet: tad@ssc.com           or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:48:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.152133.8992@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.030539.14018@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>[...]                  NOTE MODIFICATIONS
>>
>> Actually, the (superstition,religion) can probably be objectively tested.
>> That is, a study could be done to determine if (knocking on wood, religion)
>> statistically changed the presence of what we think is (good luck, whatever).
>> The control group would, of course, have an object that felt like
>> (wood, religion) but was not.  If the study was scientific and conclusive, I'd
>> bet you'd start the practice of (knocking on wood, religion)... :)
>
>Reads the same way.......

It might read the same way, but it sure falsifies the statement and makes
it totally meaningless.  Let's say that your "whatever" that you substituted
for "good luck" is eternal salvation.  Just how do you go about scientifically
testing it?

>
>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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 4 Oct 1992 00:08:52 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct1.030539.14018@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>About as much as religion does. What can one say about 'god created the
>>heavens and the earth' other than it is a causal claim. I see the distinction
>>you are making, but not the difference.
>
>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?

I can't think of any logical conclusions that follow from that assumption
alone.  Perhaps you could enlighten us?  By the way, I'm still waiting for
definitions of "spiritual needs" and "spiritual hunger."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Famous Last Words
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:04:39 GMT

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

>"Heavier than air flying machines are imposible" Lord Kelvin, 1900.

>"Space travel is utter bilge" Dr. Richard van der Riet Wolley
>                              (Astronomer Royal, 1956)

>"The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing.
>Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these
>atoms is talking moonshine." Lord Rutherford, 1933.

>"I estimate there is a world market for about five computers."
>                                          Thomas Watson, Head of IBM, 1943.

>"Atmospheric nuclear tests do not seriously endanger either present
>or future generations."  Dr. Edward Teller, 1958.

>"Reading books causes haemorrhoids." The Lancet (Medical Journal)
>                                     Anyone got the exact reference????

Found this in my system's "fortune" program:

As a method of sending a missile to the higher, and even to the highest
parts of the earth's atmospheric envelope, Professor Goddard's rocket
is a practicable and therefore promising device.  It is when one
considers the multiple-charge rocket as a traveler to the moon that one
begins to doubt ... for after the rocket quits our air and really
starts on its journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor
maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left.
Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and countenancing
of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to
re-action, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum
against which to react ... Of course he only seems to lack the
knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
		-- New York Times Editorial, 1920

I love quotes like these, except when they are used by practitioners
of the fringe sciences to justify their pet beliefs.  The argument goes
something like, "[A scientist or scientists] said X was impossible --
but it wasn't!  Therefore, anyone who says Y is impossible had better
be careful."  It's really a ridiculous analogy, when you think about it.
For a prime example of this, see the "UN-WISE QUOTES" thread currently
going on.  

Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
Univ. of Central Florida
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Idea for FAQ file
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:37:27 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Oct1.145605.3203@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.072316.18641@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes in part:
>|>
>|> Can people think of famous examples, in the past, when
>|>
>|>
>|> (a) The skeptic view was proved absolutely right,
>|>
>|>     (eg. Turin Shroud, Piltdown Man etc etc)
>I can't think of ANY thing where there was exactly ONE "the skeptical view".

ALL skeptics were right that the shroud was a fake.
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Orthodox Judaism (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 08:51:40 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1172@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>The Orthodox Jewish approach is a *legalistic* one.  They have a set of
>documents (starting with the Torah) which give exact definitions of every
>category of activity regulated by the Jewish laws.  They are being constantly
>updated to keep up with new technology.

In one of his books (either "Surely Your Joking Mr Feynman" or "What
Do You Care What Other People Think?") Feynman tells of an Orthodox
Jewish Scholar (OJS) who asked him "Is electricity fire?".  Feynman
tried to explain some basic physics, and then discovered that the only
reason the OJS wanted to know was to find out whether God would be
annoyed if he used electricity on the Sabbath.  Using fire is banned
in the Torah, so the OJS needed to know if electricity fell under this
rule.

On a more general topic, this shows how stupid religious rules can
get.  OJSs take a more legalistic approach to God than most, but I
have often thought that Roman Catholics see God as the Great
Bureaucrat (Yes, you can be saved, just so long as you fill in the
forms correctly).  I guess this is probably the result of having been
the only effective European government for several centuries.

However its not just RCs and OJSs who claim that God has made laws.
All religions place arbitrary limitations on what their followers can
do, claiming that these rules must be necessary because God has
decreed them.

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic