HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: In defense of crackpots ( was Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture:)
Date: 31 Dec 92 08:29:03 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <C03HC5.98n@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder) writes:
>
>Such arguments usually rely upon the following logic:
>
>1)  Some of the great ideas of science were once ridiculed as crackpot ideas.
>2)  My ideas are ridiculed as crackpot ideas.
>3)  Therefore my ideas are some of the great ideas of science.
>
>Sounds plausible at first, but the 3rd statement does not follow from the
>first two.

I've seen this argument so often that I begin to doubt it. I mean,
crackpot logic isn't that stupid. The logic is, I think (but who can
fathom the abysses of a crackpot mind?):

1) My ideas are unconventional, so you laugh at them;
2) But unconventionality, even apparently ridiculous, is no counterproof;
3) The example of XXX shows that the implication "ridiculous -> wrong"
   doesn't hold.
4) Therefore your observation that it's ridiculous is not sufficient to
   prove me wrong.

Maybe it would be a good point to know which "great ideas in science"
started out (supposedly) as crackpot ideas, and some information about
how quickly they were accepted would come in handy too.

Here's for starters:
Galilei. The people who did not believe him were people outside of 
science.  I don't know of any knowledgeous people who thought he
was wrong.

The Wright brothers.  (Often quoted by TM people). Did people laugh at
them?  From what I remember there were at the time ample reasons to
doubt that fixed-wing airplanes (1) were controllable and (2) motors
would be strong enough to make the whole thing feasible.  In other
words, theoretically it was possible, but from an engineer's point
of view it was not clear at all that it would work. 
Compare the Stirling motor.  After very many years of experimentation
it is still not practical.  Compare the Wankel motor. 

Einstein. Special relativity was thought to be ridiculous by people
who didn't know too much about about physics.  How long did it take
for S.R. to become accepted?

Semmelweis.  Semmelweis's big mistake was that he called everybody
who did not immediately follow his example a dirty murderer.  And he
got Alzheimer's disease by the time his ideas took root.

BTW, Semmelweis and Galilei are examples of scientists who damaged 
their own cause by being unnecessary sharp.  

Any comments?
JWNN

>
>John
>snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2616 alt.paranormal:2700 sci.skeptic:21709 alt.conspiracy:13420
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Showdown at the OK Corral - Sarfatti vs D. Wollf
Date: 26 Dec 1992 20:26:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) says:

>
>Be advised that I am checking your credit for assets and it is my intention
>to bring a lawsuit for malicious slander, libel and defamation of character
>against you personally and against your employer Computervision.
>
	I want to add my vote siding with Carl Fink and Steve Crocker
about the "wisdom" of filing lawsuit agaisnt Wolf (sp).

	USENET has a tradition of "anarchy" ESPECIALLY the "ALT."
groups! This is the "anything goes" hierarchy :-)

	Anyway, I expect more a two well known phycicists/authors.

	I hope you reconsider, Mr. Sarfatti... :-)

Tony Alicea, F.R.C. (AMORC/San Jose)
Anappolis, MD

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: dwolff@res-c4.Prime.COM (David Wolff)
Subject: re: Dale Bass on The Good, the Bad, and The Bogus
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Organization: Computervision
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:56:58 GMT

In article <Bzqt7u.4pA@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
> 
> No, the situation IS not that simple. My point about Gardner's article is
> that I was an OBSCURE asst prof at SAN Diego STATE until I became a
> useful IDIOT of un-named intelligence agencies - a pawn IN a vast
> GEO-political game - some OF the SPOOKS revealed themselves to me in the
> mid-80's. Gardner was part of this COVERT intelligence operation because
> HIS article, more THAN ANY other factor, put me "in the thick of it" -
> to quote British Intelligence agent Dennis Bardens in a REMARK to me
> in Blue BOAR Inn Cambridge UK spring of 74' the full remark was
> "Dr. SARFATTI, it is MY duty TO inform YOU of A psychic WAR raging ACROSS
> the CONTINENTS between THE Soviet UNION and YOUR country AND you ARE to BE
> in THE thick OF it."

I think you forgot to mention that you deserve the Nobel Prize and that
"they laughed at Newton and Einstein."  I've also taken the liberty of
putting a few of your words in all-caps.

(Also removed most of the newsgroups from Newsgroups:.)

David Wolff

dwolff@RES-C4.Prime.COM

Disclaimer:  Reflecting Computervision policy is a non-goal of this posting.
FreeAdvert:  Esperanto, the international language *that works*:
             Call (800) 828-5944 for free info package (US or Canada)
Wolff'sLaw:  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction,
             but generally too late to do any good.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Casting pearls before cuddlehogs.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:45:23 GMT


An articulate pizza-munching hog has snorted:
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: The Spear of Destiny? (some very raw data).
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 10:55:02 GMT

In article <C07srw.J3q@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
wri

tes:


I'm surprised you haven't been sued yet by IdEaL OrDeR PsyKicK TV for
stealing their shtick.  It was funny for a day or two, but it's getting
tedious now.    "

OK cuddles I apologize for the typos it was late and I was in a hurry - but
perhaps they have some humorous value. However my Hermetic initiatory
information is not meant for cuddlehogs but for beings higher up the scale
of evolution starting with chimpanzees although an occasional genius pig
and even parrot might qualify. But cuddlehogs are known for their stupidity
which comes from a lack of garlic in their pizza which is not made with real
cheese.

My information separates the wheat from the chaff and the latter are invited
to use the automatic kill command so that their limited biocomputer
processors need not be overloaded with meaning from the source.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re:Query
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:58:01 GMT


re:
From: darkshot@rock.concert.net (Michael B Garrett -- Chudys)
Subject: Query:
Organization: Chaos is everywhere- also pixies.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:44:57 GMT

--MORE--(47%)
FTL drives? Time travel? I believe them not impossible. So why not build
the damned things and see if they work?

If it's a question of money, then how much? If an organization HAD the
funds,
who do you hire?

Or am I missing something? (Please don't harp about research costs- I know
all about it- and I still wanna know How Much and Who).
                                                             "

As you note it takes money. The credibility barrier and a depressed economy
inhibit investment although Clinton's R&D investment tax credits if
implemented may change that. The only money in this area is Church's
funding of Puthoff's zero-point energy research at Zeus - which is good.
I need about $1,000,000/year for 10 years to fund a small group of
theorists to keep abreast of the work of Kip Thorne, David Deuthsch, Yakir
Aharonov,Igor Novikov and other visionaries (Roger Penrose) working on
real time-travel physics - as well as to explore my new "minimally non
unitary QM" and Steve Weinberg's new non-unitary QM which does permit
FTL connection communication etc. We would also need a reserve endowment
of $50,000,000 in case experiments were deemed necessary in that period.
We would also develop educational multi-media and VR software teaching
relativity, quantum mechanics etc. to kids who would be the future
star ship cadets to make Star Trek Real and to fullfill our destiny of
Space Migration, Intelligence Increase and Life Extension.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: In defense of crackpots ( was Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture: )
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:37:38 GMT
 <C03HC5.98n@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> <6774@tuegate.tue.nl> <1992Dec31.160730.393@mail.cornell.edu>

phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart) writes:

>In article <6774@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>|> Einstein. Special relativity was thought to be ridiculous by people
>|> who didn't know too much about about physics.  How long did it take

>It was also thought ridiculous by physicists.  Science is by it's nature conservative.

It was thought implausible by some physicists of the time, and recognized
almost immediately by others as elegant and capable of explaining much.
Remember, for one thing, that Einstein's role in SR was largely that of
a unifier who put into one framework things that were being done by
Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare, and others; the seed of it had been
about ever since Maxwell identified c as a characteristic speed in
electromagnetism, denying Galilean relativity.  The most vehement and long-
lived critiques of Einstein came from places where free intellectual
discourse was being stifled by oppressive political ideologies, such as
Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR. 

In 1905 Einstein was something of an outsider, but he wasn't generally
considered a crackpot.
-- 
Matt McIrvin         I read Usenet just for the	tab damage!
==== =======         = ==== ====== ==== === === === ======= 
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,alt.psychology.personality,sci.skeptic
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Casting pearls before cuddlehogs.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:20:34 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti):
>My information separates the wheat from the chaff ...

Check.  And you _are_ chafing.  Ciao.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture:  How to Handle Scientific "Unorthodoxy"
Keywords: skeptics CSICOP debunkers orthodoxy anomalies
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:14:13 GMT

In article <C03Lyz.pF@csn.org>, et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes:
>In article <1hk78vINN34t@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>'Fraid not.  It's "If this particular observation can be explained in terms of
>>known phenomena, then why should we invent a new phenomenon to explain it?"

[two of the "translations" into several languages (which on first view all
look like English to me) omitted]

>Translation: "If this particular observation can be explained in terms of
>known phenomena, then why should we investigate any new phenomenon not
>explained by it?"

Huh?  A *phenomenon* that is not explained by an *observation*, which in turn
can be explained... is this the output of a nonsense-generating AI program?
Could it be that you didn't understand Carl's sentence, and you write
un-understandable sentences yourself to parody him?  In that case you should
look up the meanings of the words (and while you're at it, look up the
singular and plural forms of "phenomenon"), for Carl's sentence makes perfect
sense.

><'Fraid It's not.  "If this particular observation can be explained in terms of
><new phenomena, then why should we invent a known phenomenon to explain it?"

Because if we always preferred new theories to old ones the school books
would have to be rewritten every week.  "No, Clarence, rain is not caused
by trolls with hoses, that was what we thought last month.  It is made by
leaks in the anti-gravity field that holds all the water in the giant pot
we call "sky"."

>Translation: why should we invent an explanation (using known phenomenon)
>rather than try to discover the actual explanation (especially if the
>real explanation reveals a new phenomena)?

Science never claims to have "actual explanations", only good and bad ones.
So you want the explanation in terms of known phenomena thrown away in favour
of the possibility of another explanation which in your eyes must be better
because it needs a new assumption (the existence of a new phenomenon)?

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
"Every three months I tell all of the new recruits that they are supposed to
stand here and not there to get their uniforms, but they just don't learn!"
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: A note on Edie Sedgwick, UFOs & Sarfatti Papers
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 09:13:57 GMT


Another interesting coincidence.
p.320 of the book EDIE by MCA heiress Jean Stein and Paris Review editor
George Plimpton (hard cover Alfred A. Knopf 1982) is a reproduction of a
publicity poster for the 1960's Andy Warhol film CIAO! MANAHATTAN. Edie
Sedgwick looking angelic is looking skywards - above her are the words
"Speed.Madness.Flying Saucers"
Edie was long dead by 1982. I became physically and emotionally involved
with her sister Suky in 1981. The 1960's plot of the film CIAO!MANHATTAN is
strange in that it is a precognition of my own actual affair with Suky in
the 1980s - including the "men in black" types in limosines.
From: an1060@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: SuperStrings
Date: 26 Dec 92 16:54:01 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories

X-Anon-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories


Hello,
 
I have the following 2-volume set for sale:
 
 
SuperString Theory, by Green, Schwarz, & Witten, 1987.
  Vol. 1 (list price $39.50)
  Vol. 2 (list price $54.50)
 
Both volumes are in new condition with their jackets.
 
Asking $85 or best offer (make me an offer)!!!
 
Please respond to:  mantell@ams.sunysb.edu
 
Abe
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2594 sci.physics:21671
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Theories are Full of Holes
Date: 23 Dec 92 11:52:42
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu's message of Sun, 20 Dec 92 19:52:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.195242.26459@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu
(John C. Baez) writes: 

   The
   explanation for what Dirac did wrong is rather technical; mathematically
   speaking, he chose the wrong complex structure for the Hilbert space of
   solutions of the Dirac equation, so the Hamiltonian (energy) was
   unbounded below, and then to wriggle out of the problem he postulated
   that all these negative-energy states were filled in the vacuum state.
   These days, people who are sharp realize that there is another complex
   structure on the Hilbert space of solutions, such that the Hamiltonian
   *is* bounded below.

Elaborate a little, please!  What do you mean by "complex structure"?  The
scalar product (i.e., the action of C on the Hilbert space)?  The inner
product?  What?
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2640 alt.paranormal:2715 alt.conspiracy:13503 sci.skeptic:21798 alt.alien.visitors:9457
From: jjs40@cd.amdahl.com (John Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: A note on Edie Sedgwick, UFOs & Sarfatti Papers
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:23:45 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <C00KBA.Dty>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>Another interesting coincidence.

Your postings read like a bad Philip K Dick novel.  

-- 
John Sullivan, Engineer/Computer Development.      Email: jjs40@cd.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA.                  Phone: (408)746-4688
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
Subject: Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture:  How to Handle Scientific "Unorthodoxy"
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Summary: "Read my posts: no new phenomenon!"
Keywords: skeptics CSICOP debunkers orthodoxy anomalies
Organization: DragonFire Unlimited
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:42:33 GMT
Expires: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 07:00:00 GMT

In article <1hk78vINN34t@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.003135.20240@netcom.com>, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>[From a colloquium]

>[...]

>=The second common approach is what critics usually call the debunkers'
>=approach.  This is the main attitude of the orthodox scientific community
>=towards anomaly claims.  It is characterized by the Committee for the
>=Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).  "Whatever is
>=claimed is nothing but ... something else."  Seemingly anomalous phenomena
>=are denied first and sometimes investigated only second.  Like the Fortean
>=the debunker is not concerned with the full explanation.  Whereas the
>=Fortean types don't want explanations, the debunkers don't need them as they
>=believe they have already them.
>
>'Fraid not.  It's "If this particular observation can be explained in terms of
>known phenomena, then why should we invent a new phenomenon to explain it?"

Translation: "If this particular observation can be explained in terms of
known phenomena, then why should care if it is the correct explanation?"

Translation: "If we can invent a explanation in terms of known phenomena,
then why should make any particular observations to verify it?"

Translation: "If this particular observation can be explained in terms of
known phenomena, then why should we investigate any new phenomenon not
explained by it?"

<'Fraid It's not.  "If this particular observation can be explained in terms of
<new phenomena, then why should we invent a known phenomenon to explain it?"

Translation: why should we invent an explanation (using known phenomenon)
rather than try to discover the actual explanation (especially if the
real explanation reveals a new phenomena)?

[...]

>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.

Translation: Hey, were we talking about astronomy? My organization is purely
at the amateur level. Usually I'm so disorganized that I can avoid taking
responsibility for anything at all. If it IS related to astronomy, then
I had nothing to do with it. That's what I get paid for.

----
 ET   "A Force of Nature"
----
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy
From: -@cc.unizar.es (-)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Sarfatti mirrors
Date: 29 Dec 92 12:40:24 GMT
Organization: ftuz
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A766053473019318@m14724.unizar.es>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 29 Dec 92 13:37:56 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

Here is the reference I remembered about those quantum paradoxes:

Adirectional Temporal Zones in QUantum Physics and Brain Physiology

by

Eva Ruhnau and Ernst Poppel

published in the IJTP, sure everyone there read it

(to be more exact, vol 30 No 8 1001 page 1083)


Tchuss,

D.H.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors
From: darkshot@rock.concert.net (Michael B Garrett -- Chudys)
Subject: Re: Query
Organization: CONCERT-CONNECT -- Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:41:36 GMT

Sarfatti- I agree with you about our destiny, as noted in the last paragraph
of your post. Strongly.

A million bucks a year, huh? It's not impossible. I'm working (slowly) on
setting up a foundation to support exactly this type of research, among
other things. I know a way to fund it, as well. Stay in touch.

And before anyone tells me that this kinda research is wacky, I will state
that even if it is, the serendipitous payoff should STILL be more than worth
the money and time.

'Shot


Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Crocker's suggestion on Wolff's remark
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:42:21 GMT


OK, Steve Crocker has made some good points and I will not proceed further
with the lawsuit and contacting the fool's employer - but one these days
"Pow! a psychic whammy - a telepathic pop! Beware the Wrath of SAR!
Sweet Dreams, Dave! Who do the quantum voodoo? Control of
action-at-a-distance is quite practical in may cultures, African, Haitian,
Brazilian,Aborigine, Shaman - the use of dream time, astral projection,
out of body, precognitive remote viewing etc. Of course, it's all cargo
cult pseudo science - don't believe it. But remember Neils Bohr kept a
horseshoe over his door anyway. I suggest that Dave stock up on silver
bullets, wooden crosses, wooden stakes and lots and lots of garlic!
.
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2612 alt.paranormal:2695 sci.skeptic:21698 alt.conspiracy:13411