HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Consensus: Too Sluggish or Too Hasty?
Summary: Pointing out some evidence
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:59:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <22483@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>Personally, I see no evidence that mainstream science has ever been "too
>critical" or too unaccepting of new theories, because of prejudice, lack of
>understanding, or anything else for that matter.  In my (admittedly optimistic)
>point of view, things are just about right, and the scientific community 
>has done a damn good job over the years separating the chaff from the wheat.
>

Have you ever read Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man"?

That book discusses numerous cases where prejudice caused otherwise
meticulous scientists to mis-read evidence. I'm beginning to feel like
the Net's resident Gould-pusher, but in all honesty, I think every
practicing scientist should be familiar with his writings. About one in
three of his "This View of Life" columns also addresses this issue, of
how prevailing theory and even social background can act as blinders, or
entrain the interpretation of evidence in a particular direction.

Read "Wonderful Life" for a cautionary tale of how a batch of fossils
that force a revisionary, almost revolutionary, reinterpretation of
life's history sat around for about 6 decades between collection and
correct interpretation.

It may be that the scientific community has done a good job of
separating chaff from wheat, but I would regard it as a truly *amazing*
coincidence if right now, for the *very first time* in the entire history
of science, there are no major misconceptions "supported" by
misinterpreted evidence. 

>If only more people would adopt the typical working scientist's level of 
>disbelief, we undoubtedly would be better off as a nation and a world.
>
>-Scott

If only more working scientists would apply that same level of disbelief
to their own unquestioned (often unspoken) assumptions, scientific
progress might happen a lot faster.

York Dobyns		ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Evolution and God
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:50:17 GMT

K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) writes:
: 
: 3) Evolution and adaptation within species is not under dispute.
: Iunderstood the question to refer to evolution from one species into
: another. I believe the absence of intermediate forms is one reason
: why the theory remains an hypothesis.
: 

Speciation has been observed in the wild in both plants and animals.
If you ask over on talk.origins I'm sure you will be provided with
detailed references.  If not, I can dig up some second hand
references.

Evolution is so close to being a "fact" that yelling about it being
"only a theory" is splitting hairs with semantics.  Relativity, QM,
and everything in the physical sciences are "only a theories"
according to strict semantics.  Yet nuclear reactors react, computers
compute, planes fly, ships float, and the lights come on when you
throw the switch.  All based _entirely_ on "mere theories."

So evolution is evolution is "only a theory."  Lets see somebody jump
off a bridge and not fall -- after all, gravity is "only a theory."

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  --``I love KATRINKA
Rosemount Inc.                                |because she drives a
                                              |PONTIAC.  We're going away
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |now.  I fed the cat. -
                                              |Zippy''
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee)
Subject: Re: WILL OUR GVT IMPLANT OUR CHILDREN?
Organization: Uni Computing Service, Uni of Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:36:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.024202.5259@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>....  Not an implant, but a
>bracelet designed in such a way that any attempt to tamper with it causes it to
>transmit a signal to that effect.
>
>Actually, some Alzheimers patients might appreciate the availability of such a
>device.

Now if they could only remember why...

Bill Lee
("Beyond 2000" has an unbridled optimism for technology.  I get the feeling
that they would give a report on Nerve Gas as having the potential for
saving thousands of gallons of gasoline that would otherwise be wasted in
transporting heavy machine gun ammunition. Or automatic hand-lopping
machinery for all people to reduce the incidence of pickpocketing and to
eliminate the need for fingernail clippers.)
Being a skeptic does not means just being skeptical of paranormal claims;
we want to be skeptical of all unjustified claims.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:7853 talk.origins:4085 talk.religion.misc:6226
From: M..Stirner@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (M. Stirner)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Major Rtk&ba wildness
Date: 16 Apr 92 08:30:10 GMT

[much deleted]
LB>These have the effect of gun control activists masquerating as "concerned
LB>citizens" passing Bill of Right Free Zones i.e. Gun Free School Zones
LB>and "Child-Firearm-Safety" laws i.e. you are defacto negligent if a
LB>child accidentally shoots another, since the child used your gun and
LB>"Make-Your-Weapon-Useless-Trigger-Lock" laws. Of course, the ultimate
LB>version of this is the Washington, D.C. law which states that having
LB>an assembled firearm in your home is illegal....

Wow.  What an incredibly boss rant.  As a heavily-armed paranoiac
myself, I surely admire special posts like this...  My theory would be
get someone else's - or _someone else's dog's_ micro-manacle ID chip &
then give the techno-trackers something to think about:  "What's this
_DAWG_ doing driving a car???"
 .   ~
 .   M.

   
 * SLMR 2.1a * When a Unitarian dies, does he go to the Great Perhaps?

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Francisco - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: ulf@napoleon.c3consult.comm.se (Ulf Lagerstedt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Gellers Deposition
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:48:44 GMT
Organization: Communicator C3Consult AB


I have read a few articles referring to a "deposition" made by Uri Geller, 
and I assume it is some kind of controlled test of Geller's claimed psychic
or predictive powers. Could someone provide more information about what the 
deposition actually is, and what it is supposed to predict? When will the 
issue be resolved? 

Side information on James Randi and his work (or references) would also be 
appreciated. Thanks!

--
Ulf Lagerstedt                  "When the grammar checker identifies an error,
Communicator C3Consult           it suggests a correction and can even makes
Uppsala, Sweden                  some changes for you."
ulf@c3consult.comm.se           Microsoft Word for Windows 2.0 User's Guide.
From: pml3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Here we go now...)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: JFK Assassination Mailing List
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:49:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: ns1.1992Apr14.034953.137021
Organization: Lehigh University

There is a mailing list dedicated to the discussion of the JFK Assassination
and various theories and news items.  If you would like to join, reply to this
message, and mention the JFK list.

Thank you.

-- 

+-| Paul M. Lewis, six damn credits short: SCREW L.U. |---+-| Looking for: |-+
|'I'd love to turn you on.'                 -The Beatles  | Cover Up         |
|'You should be with us, feeling like we do -Perry Farrell|   by Gary Shaw   |
| like you love to, but never will again.'                | JFK titles       |
|'You never had the answers!'               -Ministry     |   by R. Cutler   |
|'You can't be what you were.'              -Fugazi       | Muchmore 8mm     |
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorum
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:38:13 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <1992Apr8.004108.2697@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

>What's tantalizing about FLT is this fabled note that Fermat wrote before
>he died saying that he found an "elegant proof."

	The theorem states that there are no positive integers a, b,
and c, such that

	a^n + b^n = c^n

	where n is some integer greater than 2.

	The story goes that he had written a note in the margin of a
book stating that he had found a truly elegant proof, but that there
was not enough room to write it down in.

>There are two possibilities:
>
>                  (a) he really found the proof, which is now lost
>                  (b) he had a mental abberation and was mistaken

	Another possibility is that he had had an idea which he
thought was the proof, but one that would turn out fallacious,
although this might turn out to be a subset of (b).

>Out of curiosity, I was wondering whether the maths community today
>generally regards (a) or (b) a being the most likely?

	I would say (b). All attempts to prove Fermat's last theorem
have had only partial success, applying only to certain special cases,
like n = 3 or 4. Furthermore, no counterexamples have ever been found.

	This circumstance would suggest that, unless Fermat had been
unusually lucky, his purported proof would have turned out fallacious.
If he had been successful, then some other mathematician would have
thought of the same proof; there are several examples of more than one
scientist making the same discovery independently.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (David Plumpton)
Subject: Re: Evolution and God
Keywords: Evolution,proof
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 07:14:25 GMT

geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz (Geoff McCaughan) writes:
>K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) writes:
>> 3) Evolution and adaptation within species is not under dispute. Iunderstood
>> the question to refer to evolution from one species into another. I believe
>> the absence of intermediate forms is one reason why the theory remains an
>> hypothesis.

>You believe wrong. The "absence of intermediate forms" is a chestnut
>often trotted out in arguments against evolution. *All* life forms are
>"intermediate" biology is replete with examples [two off the top of my
>head, the R-complex in the human brain, and the appendix].

>Lack of "proof" for evolutionary theory says more about the nature of
>proof than the nature of the theory. Pick any theory for the origin of
>species, figure out a way to prove it. Tricky eh?

The absence of intermediate forms is *predicted* by evolution.  It's called
Punctuated Equilibrium.  Species tend to stay relatively the same for ages,
and then do a quick spurt of evolving when some environmental pressure comes
to bear.
-- 
/------------------------------\ /-------------------------------\
I       David Plumpton          I     There is a holy trinity:    |
I plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au I N Tesla, R Feynman and C Sagan  |
\------------------------------/ \-------------------------------/
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Acupuncture (wasRe: Consensus...)
Date: 7 Apr 92 11:30:33 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1556@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>
>Two things spring to mind here.
>
>First, in one of his "Zoovet" books, David Taylor (I think that was
>his name) reports witnessing a major abdominal operation on a horse
>during a visit to China.  The operation was in fact unnecessary: it
>was only carried out to demonstrate to Taylor the use of accupuncture
>in anasthesia (Yes, Taylor did wonder about the ethics of this, but
>was too curious about the technique to object).  The horse appeared
>completely unconcerned about having a foot or so of its gut removed.

[remainder deleted]

Two things spring to mind.
One a report of a reputable journalist (sorry, can't remember names)
who on the occasion of the Nixon visit to China reported to have
witnessed a patient under "acupuncture anesthesia" get a lung
operation.  Now if the chest is opened, the lungs collapse. The patient
needs to be hooked up to some apparatus to keep air flowing in and out
of the lung.  Still, the story said that the patient was fully
conscious, asked for some orange juice and drank this during the
operation (or did he just munch on slices?).  So the journalist
described something he didn't see, or was looking not too good. 
This may happen, for instance, if the journalist is very eager to
please his hosts, and use their documentation, rather than see for
himself.

Second, horses can be made really quiet by an instrument that consists
of a noose that is twisted around their nose.  Possibly analogous to
acupuncture anesthesia. Increase of endorphines has been observed 
under those circumstances. 

The claim of acupuncturists is that it really matters where those needles
are stuck in, and that suggestion has nothing to do with it.

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Humanoids On Mars (Again)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:22:12 GMT

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
: jasonh@aeras.UUCP (Jason Harris) writes:
: >Why do you need the bulk of the neurons to be centrally located? Why not 
: >distribute the intelligence mechanism throughout the body.
: 
: Why do microchip fabricators continue to work to reduce the size of
: the chips?  Speed and power considerations.  The longer the distance
: a signal has to travel, the longer it will take and the more power
: it will require.

And don't forget PROFITS.  Smaller die size means more dice per wafer,
and maybe a higher yield percentage.  Overhead costs on a per-wafer
basis don't go up as fast as the number of dice per-wafer increases.
This means each die costs less to produce.  Now you can:

  1)  Cut your prices (hopefully gaining market share) while maintaining 
      your margin.

  2)  Keep prices the same (as long as the market will bear) thus
      increasing your margin.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I'm having an EMOTIONAL
Rosemount Inc.                                |OUTBURST!!  But, uh, WHY is
                                              |there a WAFFLE in my PAJAMA
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |POCKET??
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8129 talk.origins:4367 talk.religion.misc:7273
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:33:51 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <GERRY.92Apr6120433@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
writes:
>   The story of Jesus Christ appearing after
>   he was dead is the story of an apparition,
>   such as timid imaginations can always
>   create in vision, and credulity believe.
>   Stories of this kind had been told of the
>   assassination of Julius Caesar...
>   Thomas Paine

.. or Elvis, who seems to be a modern American saint...

Cheers,
Kent
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: I don't know.
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:56:57 GMT
Reply-To: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo


Dan Ashlock says:
}   Come on Dave, _I_ personally said I didn't know (about the existence of)
}God, Free Will, (the truth of) the Riemann Hypothisis, the Goldbach Conjecture,
}(the veracity of) personal anecdotes from San Diego and Boca Raton in the last
}month.

Good for you. I never said that all skeptics refuse to say I don't know
all the time.

}   I also state _for the record_ that I do not know if there are forces beyond
}the standard ones or peculiar manefestations of the standard forces; its just
}that precognition has terrible evidence compared to many far less plausible
}theories like evolution or the big bang.

This is what I like to hear. I think that here we may be in agreement.....
Arghh...sort of. The evidence presented by PEAR labs in Princeton isn't
so bad. I also think that there is great subjective resistence to the idea
of psi.
 
}   If someone rendered me tabula rosa I'd find precognition far easier to
}believe than evolution or the big bang.  It's cute and all for you to attempt
}to steal the skeptic's thunder (being willing to say I don't know), but you
}already went on record as believing that careful testing is a mere
}technicallity (or some such) and that personal experience is the true path to
}knowledge.

I still believe that the only way to really know something is to experience
it. I am not sure what you are getting at here.
 
}   In your case its more like "I refuse to know what is available to know". 
}Look at what you're saying; that we can't tell that psychics don't get modest
}help with the lottery from their powers.  What value is such a statement?  You
}squarely ignored the point about the giant, pink, ..., bunny rabbits which is
}key.

You are taking what I said out of context.
When a whole line of argument is based on the assumption that no psychic has
ever won the lottery using his/her powers, then my statements make perfect
sense. Skeptics who chuckle about the fact that no psychic has won the
lottery, don't know what they are talking about, because no one really
knows if anyone has or not. They don't know. I don't know. So, using this
erroneous assumption as some sort of basis for disproving psi is bogus.
That is what I was doing... pointing out a bogus argument. That's all.

}                               Look, ma! No rapier wit!

I really don't mind wit if it goes hand in hand with respect for other's
ideas. I think that the tone of your discussion here
is exemplary. I enjoy having discussions with people who exchange ideas
in this manner.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8056 rec.music.classical:5786
From: stephan@psych.toronto.edu (Stephan Hamann)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.music.classical
Subject: Album by bizzare British spiritualist
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:13:16 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, University of Toronto




 I've been going crazy trying to find information on a bizzare British
lady spiritualist who claims that she communicates with long-dead composers.
Apparently she goes into a trance and writes down music by a form of
automatic writing, producing "Mozart" and "Beethoven" sonatas, "Chopin"
mazurkas, etc., quickly and effortlessly. 

 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
she was in the news much more in the 1960s and '70s than now. I read about
her once somewhere, and a friend tells me that she actually did an album.
Any info on this colorful woman or her album would be appreciated!


Stephan Hamann
Dept. of Psychology
University of Toronto

stephan@psych.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: I don't know.
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:23:25 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Apr6.215657.6121) some desolate soul writes:

>I still believe that the only way to really know something is to experience
>it.

How does one experience the life of Abraham Lincoln? 

How does one experience the electron? (Stick yer tongue into a light
socket, maybe, but that would actually be an experience of one extreme
aspect of the human nervous system.)

Only animals "really" know something only through experience, not people.
If someone claims that they cannot "really" know something by excercising their
mentality, we must suspect that they don't have a mentality.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson)
Subject: Re: Why Psychics don't win
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:52:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.214845.4671@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <881277m.111.703451721@ace.acadiau.ca> 
>  881277m@ace.acadiau.ca (WALLACE MCLEAN) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr15.173107.7981@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
>  amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>>
>>>Every time before, when someone has
>>>popped up and said, here is convincing evidence for PSI, *every single time*,
>>>it has proven to be either a deliberate or unconscious fraud.  While I
>>							^^^^^
>>isn't a fraud by definition  deliberate?
>
>Okay, so pick a different word.  What I meant was that every experiment that
>I have seen proved to be invalid for some reason.  The researchers either
>deliberatly or unconsciously altered their results.
>
>C Frog 

Bah!  That is patently absurd.  What is the point of making such a
statement?  You are simply digging yourself a deeper hole, or perhaps
you are Andrea Todkill in disguise?  Marvelous picture -- researchers
deliberately or unconsciously (!) altering their results.  Might make
some sense if there were awards, prizes, high-paying positions, etc. at
stake, but that only occurs in medicine, physics, molecular biology...
Not in psi research.  

Roger N

P.S.   Give me Ashlock, Lydick, and Giles.
From: trdgav01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: NP-Hard problems
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:46:24 +0200
Organization: FACCS LAB, UCT

In article <5503@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx>, pl160988@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
> There is a test that would conclusively prove the existence of
> clairvoyance. As computer scientists know, there is a set of problems
> called "NP-Hard". Some of these problems are the Traveling Salesperson

> problems in an efficient way. So the test is to confront a psychic with
> an instance of one of these problems, say, the TSP, and ask him to find
> a better solution than the best one ever found using a computer. There
> would be no possible way to do it except clairvoyance.

Unless of course there *are* efficient algorithms (unknown to us) for the NP
complete problems, in which case the `psychic' needn't be clairvoyant, 
just clever (they don't seem to go together). Rest assured, there aren't any
psychics. I'm suprised David Hume's argument against miracles hasn't been
employed in this newsgroup yet (to the best of my knowledge). It all depends on
how strong a clairvoyance a psychic claims; most of them only claim
indeterminate, periodic success (can't summon it up at will), in which case
their claim is irrefutable and uninteresting. If their claim is reliable
regular success, then they are either tapping some natural phenomenon (new
kinds of waves?) or are performing miracles. If they are using a natural
phenomenon they are no more special than Pasteur or Flemming, and suffer the
disadvantage of not knowing exactly what it is they have discovered or come to
possess, together with having been unable to convince anyone else of their
discovery (an unenviable position for a brilliant scientist to be in). If they
are performing miracles then they are not; that is, there are no miracles, as
Hume easily demonstrated in the 18th century. For what is a miracle but a
transgression of a natural law; for every miracle, extend our natural laws to
include the miracle, and then there are no miracles. After all, the natural
laws cover everything possible, and if miracles are possible then they are not
miracles.
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Gavan Tredoux, Dept. Math. |  "Einstein and people like Einstein said that |
| University of Cape Town    |   the world was flat" T(uesday) Lobsang Rampa |
| Rondebosch 7700 RSA        |                                               |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+