HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:44:30 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Sep30.162924.4810@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> wjc@guardian.austin.ibm.com (Bill Collum) writes:
#Maybe I missed something, being neither a devout "beliver" nor an
#avowed "skeptic" (well, maybe more skeptical than most), but is 
#"Scientific Creationism" really taught in public schools? With
#tax-payers dollars? Tell me it's not true. It's no wonder we're well
#on our way to becoming a third-world nation when children are
#taught "beliefs" and "superstitions" rather than "evidence" and 
#"facts" in schools that are intended to prepare them for life as
#productive citizens. 

It's really true, unfortunately. Creationism gets taught
a lot in public schools, sometimes on the teacher's own
hook, sometimes with the connivance of the authorities
including school boards.

If you are concerned about this, you should contact

    National Center for Science Education
    PO Box 9477
    Berkeley CA 94709-0477

Membership of $20. per year will get you the newsletter
and will help to fight this discouraging situation.

Bill Jefferys
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Orthodox Judaism (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:58:39 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)

In article <2044@snap>, paj@uk (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.

Neither Feynman nor the OJS understood each other.  "Fire" is a term with
a specific meaning to a physicist (certain rapid oxidations with emission
of light, heat, etc), and a different specific meaning to a rabbi (certain
productions of heat and light).  Nor is there a shred of accuracy to your
(perhaps Feynman's) statement that all the OJS was interested in was what
would annoy God.  Orthodoxy encourages a relentless viewing and reviewing
of religious law and practice from all angles, no matter how bizarre or odd.
No decision stands in isolation, and determing the exact halakhic nature of
electricity would have endless repercussions in other directions.  Such a
question "is electricity fire?" is quite within this pattern, and is rather
mild compared to the really weird ones.

>On a more general topic, this shows how stupid religious rules can get.

Just what is stupid here?  The Orthodox think they're great, and have
kept Judaism alive for 2000 years despite hostile neighbors.

>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,

They are not so "arbitrary".

>    claiming that these rules must be necessary because God has
>decreed them.

That's not Orthodoxy.  At the core is what God said, but Orthodoxy adds
to it all sorts of surrounding restrictions and activities based on the
decision making by the rabbis (explicit) and the people (implicit) over
history.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:20:13 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep22.165733.617@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>An electric field is defined by a set of physical characteristics which
>are measurable.  That is, there is an "if and only if" relation between
>the physical characteristics and an electric field.  I've never quite
>heard anyone define the soul in those kind of terms.

I'll agree with your last statement.  I for one have never heard anyone define
soul in any terms other than:
	It's something that you can't observe, but it exists because:
	1)  I believe it exists;
	2)  I say it exists;
	3)  I need it to in order to justify my actions;

>One could investigate the effects all they wanted, and you'd
>probably learn a great deal about the soul's effects.  IMHO, you
>will never, however, be able to scientifically prove its
>existence.  If you know of a scientific way to do this, please let
>me know.  If you don't, then perhaps you might want to fine tune
>your absolute declarations.

Well, before we can answer your question about scientifically demonstrating the
existence of a soul, how about you give us a definition of soul that you're
willing to stick to throughout the rest of the discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:05:12 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox

In article <1992Oct6.124052.9026@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.105047.10775@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|> > In article <1992Oct5.111237.9016@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:

[stuff deleted]

|> >>
|> >>You were proposing a scientific study of superstition.  If you limit yourself
|> >>to proposing tests of religion in which no data can be collected, well of
|> >>course the test is meaningless, which means we are dealing in opinion again. 
|> >>Are you ready to  agree with that?
|> > 
|> > I was only observing that, at least in the cases we were talking about,
|> > the superstitious beliefs could be scientifically tested but the religious
|> > beliefs could not.
|> 
|> And as pointed out by others, if you choose not to define your beliefs in a
|> manner that is objectively testable, or course.  But then your beliefs are only
|> subjectively valid for you, have no proof, and are just that.  You have
|> absolutely given no reason for anyone to want to believe as you do, other than
|> your own subjective experiences.

In the end, what else is there but subjectivity? These issues are more philosophical
than anything. This objective/subjective thing has been going on for a _long_ time.
Carl Jung devotes copious amounts of ink to this issue. I more or less agree
with his stance that it is more dependent on the personality type of the individual
whether objective or subjective data is deemed more relevant. In the Western mind,
objective data is often more valuable than subjective data; to the Eastern mind the opposite
is generally the case. There is room for integration of both extremes in the formation
of a rational viewpoint. Instead of allowing one perspective to dominate, it's possible
to give both equal weight. 
Too often, it seems, the so-called "scientific" ideal gives short shrift to the subjective
experience. This can leave one in the lurch when it comes to apprehending reality _as it is_.
Reality is neither objective or subjective: it is both. Modern science acknowledges
the immanence of this paradox. One needn't look further than Heisenberg or Einstein to see
that they addressed these paradoxes head-on. Hey, the world is a big place. It's sure
a hell of a lot bigger than the space between one's ears.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17472 comp.ai.philosophy:6293
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: CR and category errors
Summary: I think *pro*CR-ers have the category error
Date: 05 Oct 92 01:58:13 GMT

: From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
: Message-ID: <1992Sep28.164828.2122@meteor.wisc.edu>
: I hereby say (again) that Searle's Chinese Room argument is compelling,
: and that arguments against it make a deep and irreperable category
: mistake. 

Hmmmmm?  I've always thought just the opposite.  That is, Searle
commits the category error of confusing the process with the
processor.

: Searle points out that, granting that natural language algorithms
: exist, a non-Chinese speaking human executing the algorithm will
: certainly give functionally correct responses in Chinese to inputs
: in Chinese. The question is whether any "understanding" of Chinese
: thereby occurs. 

So far, so good.

: It is clear that the algorithm is a static mathematical
: structure, and that the human does not understand the conversation he is
: facilitating, although functionally appropriate exchanges in Chinese are
: occuring. The point of this description is to clarify the difference between
: functional Chinese and experiential Chinese: the latter is obviously not
: occuring.

Ah.  I think that this confuses the algorithm with the process that
executes it.  That is, I agree that the algorithm doesn't understand
anything because it can't experience anything, being a static
structure.  But the process resulting from instantiating the
algorithm on some processor is NOT a static structure, and I see
no reason to suppose that such a process can have experiences.

Oh, and as to the human not understanding, supposing that it should
is the category error of confusing the human (the processor) with
the process (the alleged AI).
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: obrien@netcom.com (Robert O'Brien)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Paying Attention (was: Reincarnation)
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:10:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)


Uh, excuse me, I'm new to this group, but I'd like to point out that
the following is seriously at odds with any definition I've heard of
for the concept of "luck"

That is, I think "bring good luck" and "ward off bad luck" are, in fact,
synonymous in any definition.

	Bob "comments *first*, attributions after" O'Brien



In article <1992Oct1.215731.15796@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>[somebody else] (I can't be sure of the attribution) writes:
>>However, doesn't a belief in a rabbit's foot bringing good luck have the
>>implication that if I forget my rabbit's foot or fail to carry it with
>>me today, then *bad* luck will strike me?  That certainly sounds ominous to
>>me!
>
>Not to me, it doesn't. Are you postulating that an object's perceived 
>ability to bring good luck _necessarily_ carries with it a perceived ability 
>to ward off bad luck? (Or does this come from something more specifically 
>related to rabbit's feet?) 


No .sig file, but if I had one, it *might* say:
################################################
# No more lesser evils!                        #
#         ------        Cthulhu/Sottoth in '92 # 
################################################
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU
Distribution:  usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:46:17 GMT

In article <66694@cup.portal.com>, 
John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes...

>Dear Baby Watchers: Some well thought questions have been asked about
>our Baby Talkers. Sara has now aged quite a bit from her origninal talking
>at 20 minutes old. She is considered to be a one year old now. It is 
>my opinion that more and more such cases will show up in the future.

Isn't there a story that when the Buddha was born he took seven steps,
looked over his right shoulder and said, "This is my last rebirth.",
or some such?  Anyhow, stories like this aren't something new, you know.
All this proves is that prodigal baby stories are not limited to the
"stupid people who lived in the past".  We don't seem to be much wiser 
nowadays, do we?

>Everybody lives before they are born here at this time. In the past it
>has been the rule to erase a person's memory before they are born.

Well, I don't know about "rules" for _regular_ people, but we awakened ones
remember _all_ of our past lives, and all the events in them that led up
to our becoming Bodhisattvas.  Don't you?  :-)

>                                                                    Now
>this is not being done in some cases. Sara continues to talk but speaks
>mostly about the future. They say that we suppose she is beginning to
>forget her life before birth. 

Now that's a REAL SHAME.  Earlier you said that people in Heaven knew
_everything_, and here she is forgetting it all!  Just when I was hoping that
we could save a few millions in R & D dollars and you're telling us that she 
won't be able to help after all!

Since she still "remembers" the future, could she give me some hints as to
some good stocks to invest in, anyhow?  Perhaps a lotto number or two?

>                               She lives in San Marco, Italy.
>John Winston.

:-)

battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
From: wsadjw@rw9.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Meteorites & l'academie
Date: 4 Oct 92 12:01:32 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1alp8sINNg1n@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <718012061.2@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG>, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
>>Hardly a month passes in which I don't hear some fatuous assertion that
>>the French Academy's dismissal of meteorite reports shows that

It's all in the line of paranormal nonsensicality to consider a report
written by three scientists in 1770 or thereabouts as exemplary of "all"
scientists.  Anyway, Rick and Carl, I have before me here 
F.A. Paneth, Science and Miracle, Durham University Journal 41 (1949),
p. 45-54, which gives on p.48-50 the story in somewhat more detail.
I can send this to you (Rick I have your address, what's yours Carl?).
The article has references to books and articles from around 1803.

Interesting tidbit: one of the three "bad" scientists was Lavoisier,
aged 26 at the time.

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:15:10 EST
 <1a97ciINN82t@gap.caltech.edu> <1992Sep30.152426.10798@hfsi.uucp> <schnitzi.717877881@eola.cs.ucf.edu>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <schnitzi.717877881@eola.cs.ucf.edu>, schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>>I would define soul as that spiritual part of us humans that
>>>>defines us in God's image. It is a separate entity, infused into
>>>>the body before birth, and leaves the body at death.  Because it
>>>>is the part of us that is like God, it is intrinsically and
>>>>naturally immortal.  Furthermore, it is the principle behind our
>>>>intellect and reasoning ability.
> 
> How would you explain the fact, then, that medical conditions which
> affect our brain (accidents, strokes, drugs) also can affect our
> "intellect and reasoning ability"?  Do these things damage our
> souls as well?
> 
> Mark Schnitzius
> schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
> Univ. of Central Florida

Also, when does the 'soul' enter the body?  At conception?  If so, I have
a major problem with that!

Sue
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Crucified for Prophecy's Sake?
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:56:20 GMT

In article <BvGo2t.BGH.2@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>: From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
>: Subject: Re: Crucified for Prophecy's Sake? (was: What did Judas betray?)
>: Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 16:35:40 GMT
>: 
>: >>	Psalm 22:13-18
>: >022:013 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a
>: >        roaring lion.
>: >022:014 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint:
>: >        my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
>: >022:015 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue
>: >        cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of
>: >        death.
>: >022:016 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have
>: >        inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
>: >022:017 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
>: >022:018 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my
>: >        vesture.
>: 
>: In article <1992Sep30.174735.22504@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>: >
>: >Oh, how clear this is. These verses OBVIOUSLY prophecy a crucifixion!   
>: 
>: No, not obviously crucifixion, but since not one bone was broken it
>: obviously wasn't by stoning and since his hands and feet were pierced,
>: bones were out of joint, etc there are very few options other than
>: crucifixion or some bizarre method of drawing and quartering.
>: 
>: The prophecies are much clearer than anything Nostrodomus [sic] ever
>: did, but if they were too clear there would be the danger of a staged
>: incident.  A little ambiguity helps people realize afterward that
>: prophecy was fulfilled.
>
>Of course, in the absence of independent secular testimony it is also
>possible that the authors of the gospels used these passages from the Psalms
>as the source of the details they provide.
>
>Karl


Of course it's possible.  It's all a matter of what you choose to believe.
I believe that the Psalms were indeed fortelling Jesus's death.  But I can
understand a skeptic not believing.
-- 
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: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Some Real Physics (Was: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology)
Date: 1 Oct 1992 12:56 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 <1992Sep30.233546.14099@isrc.sandia.gov>, smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey) writes...
> 
>	Not to speak for other skeptics, but I think this argument is useful.
>First of all, you do not "feel" gravitational force.  Space Shuttle

I'm not sure what you mean by "feel."  You do not feel pulled down 
by gravity when in free-fall.  But a physicist would say that you are
experiencing a net time-varying force which puts you in an orbit which results
in time-varying non-zero acceleration. All parts of your body undergo the same
acceleration (neglecting tidal effects), so you don't feel the pull of 
gravity which results when your feet are firmly planted but your stomach 
sinks down under the pull (the normal state of affairs).

>astronauts experience Earth's gravity nearly as strong as what we
>experience here on Earth, but as you can see from those cool space
>videos, they "feel" nothing.  What they would "feel" is tidal forces.
>These are not proportional to 1/(d^2), but to 1/(d^4) I believe.
>If someone knows the correct factor please let me know.

Differences in 1/d^2 are proportional to 1/d^3.  Just take the derivative.

>	The point is that unless Einstein was way off base, a constant
>gravitational field can't do much.  The tidal "force" is a gradient
>in the field and can effect things. (tides etc...)  

Einstein said that you can't distinguish constant acceleration from a uniform
gravitational field.  He didn't say that neither the acceleration nor the
field have an effect.  He said they have the same effect.

>	Besides, Astrologers talk about planets effecting stuff. I don't
>think the calculations will support astrologers when comparing tidal
>forces exerted to planets to tidal forces exerted by nearby mountains,
>etc...

I disagree.  Yesterday, I posted calculations comparing the Moon to 
a Doctor, and found that the tidal force of the Moon is larger than that
of the Doctor.  But now you want to talk about mountains, which are 
millions of times more massive than the doctor, versus planets which are
tens to thousands as far away as the Moon.  So, without doing the calculation,
since I don't have hard numbers, I think that the Mountains will win this
contest.

-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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Famous Last Words
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:27:16 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide


A number of people in this group refuted the suggestion that
manned flight (as we know it today) was once thought impossible.


Here are some quotes:


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


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


Enjoy!!


Derek.




PS: Just for fun, here are some more "famous last words" in different fields:

"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????


Anyone got more quotes like the above?