HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jb8285@guinea (Jeffrey R. Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:06:50 GMT
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.

This thread does not seem to be about the efficacy of prayer.

I think that discussions about the efficacy of prayer are appropriate
for sci.skeptic, but what you all are arguing about (ad nauseum, I
might add) is not.

It seems that the main discussion going on is whether religion
(Christianity, in particular) is good/true/valid.  Since it is obvious
that there is no hope of consensus on the criteria to use to decide if
a religion is good/true/valid, it looks like you will be going at this
until you finally tire of it.

The frequent request for an "operational definition" of Christianity
doesn't seem to be appropriate.  Can any one give me an operational
definition of "good art" (not art, but good art)?  Nevertheless,
museum curators do make decisions concerning what is good enough to
hang on the walls.  Even though it is unlikely that one could get
consensus on the definition of "good art", this does not mean that all
art and art museums should be banished, nor that those of us who
appreciate art are completely irrational.

Christianity, and other religions, are not scientific theories.  They
can not be tested experimentally or falsified.  Similarly, art, music,
poetry are not scientific theories and they can't be falsified either.
The fact that poetry, music, art, and religion are not falsifiable
does not, per se, mean that they are worthless.  The human condition
is not limited to purely rational and experimentally refutable
experiences.  (And, in my opinion, I wouldn't want it to be.)

Arguments about the adherents of Christianity (or other religions)
similarly don't prove much of anything.  Of course there are
Christians, Jews, Muslims, et al who have committed crimes.  Does this
invalidate the religions?  There are scientists who have done some
un-scientific and unethical things (remember cold fusion?).  This
doesn't invalidate physics or chemistry or other branches of science.

It seems to be a waste of time to attempt to prove the (in)validity of
religion.  All proofs are based on assumptions, and since theists
and atheists have different assumptions, they can each prove that they
are right, to their own satisfaction.  It may be appropriate for a
skeptic to call into question the underlying basis for a certain
belief.  But since most religious beliefs are not scientific (in the
sense of being falsifiable) I would wager that it would probably
turn into a long circular argument in which noone changed his/her
opinion.

Anyone want to discuss efficacy of prayer?  This is something that
might be amenable to experimental refutation (but personally I doubt
it).  Start another thread, say "Efficacy of Prayer II", and keep on
the topic.

--
Jeffrey R. Brown                Internet: jeffrey.brown@medtronic.com
Medtronic, Inc. (T430)          UUCP:     uunet!medtron!jb8285
7000 Central Avenue N.E.        Voice:    1-612-574-4698
Minneapolis, MN 55432 USA       FAX:      1-612-574-6150
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19170 alt.paranormal:2460 alt.alien.visitors:8117
From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Jeane Dixon Predicts Bush Victory
Date: 7 Nov 1992 21:00:59 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: b1230bmac8.larc.nasa.gov

Jeane Dixon "predictions" make me remind a  television show in my 
country called (translated of course) "Fantastic!: the Show of the Life". 
While I was in there, I remember, every year they would come along 
with predictions by American astrologers. One of the predictions, and 
I guess it was back in the 70's,  was that we were going to capture a 
flying saucer and revolutionize human knowledge and, amazingly, 
many different astrologers and, I bet, independently, had came with 
this prediction. Well, should I botter to say? Nothing happened of 
course and next year they came with another bunch of predictions 
and, never mind, they did not comment about the alien technology. 
Gosh! If there is any conspiracy I bet it is a conspiracy by all these guys 
that claim all those strange things and "forget" to mention that last 
year's predictions did not work!


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:20:48 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 1df8c0INNi5h@gap.caltech.edu, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.174337.15525@lsil.com>, gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne) writes:
> >At this point, I would invoke Hanlon's Razor:
> >
> >"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
> 
> I believe you meant Heinlein (Robert A.), not Hanlon.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>

No, I meant Hanlon.  If you can prove that Heinlein said this and give a reference,
I'll take his word for it.  However, I have heard this quote from at least two
different sources, both with the same attribution.

No, I don't know who Hanlon was (just as I don't know who Murphy was, and don't care).
I do, however, know who Heinlein was.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de
Subject: Mars effect
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 21:17:13 MEZ

 
 
SORRY, THIS FIGURE IN MY TODAY's POST HAS A WRONG ENTRY (2,088);
 
                                                          wrong
            I---------------------------I-----I-----I---- wrong --------I
     N =    I       2,088               I 450 I 350 I     N=2,088       I
            I---------------------------I-----I-----I-------------------I
correct:    I     published                         I    unpublished    I
            I---------------------------I-----------I-------------------I
wrong (J&J):I    "published"            I     "unpublished"             I
            I---------------------------I-------------------------------I
 
          Figure 1:  Gauquelin data, correct and wrong (J&J) divisions
 
 
HERE YOU FIND THE CORRECT ENTRY (1,503):
                                                           correct
            I---------------------------I-----I-----I----- correct -----I
     N =    I       2,088               I 450 I 350 I     N=1,503       I
            I---------------------------I-----I-----I-------------------I
correct:    I     published                         I    unpublished    I
            I---------------------------I-----------I-------------------I
wrong (J&J):I    "published"            I     "unpublished"             I
            I---------------------------I-------------------------------I
 
    Suitbert Ertel
Institute of Psychology
University of Goettingen
   Gosslerstrasse 14
   D-3400 Goettingen
       Germany
sertel@dgogwdg1.bitnet
From: Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:24:00 +1100

TP> What I am really offended by is that when I ask that the speaker not
TP> use language that I find exclusionary or intimidating, the response is
TP> almost universally something close to yours.  Once you know that I
TP> find your words troublesome, and you continue to use them, you are
TP> insulting me with malice aforethought.

What if I were to be offended by references to breadbaskets or bicycles? In
certain communities it would be deemed offensive to be discussing homosexual
activities.

Surely you must either say that "insulting with malice aforethought" is trivial
and/or to be accepted in certain cases, or you must say that where the primary
aim of the speech is not to insult - as in the case of the two gentlemen using
the word "faggot" - then the over-riding value of free and unfettered
communication takes precedence.

Some of us have been in situations where we have been stopped during every
sentence to rephrase statements that carry unpopular sentiments. This is
censorship as grave as burning books, or worse. It does not assist in the
transmission of a message with sanitised words. Rather, it *prevents* you from
articulating your viewpoint.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Date: 7 Nov 1992 02:06:56 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov4.174337.15525@lsil.com>, gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne) writes:
>At this point, I would invoke Hanlon's Razor:
>
>"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I believe you meant Heinlein (Robert A.), not Hanlon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 04:41:28 GMT

>>lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>> 
>>>Eyewitnesses don't get everything right (unless, of course, they are
>>>being divinely guided so that their every word is accurate).  But when
>>>there are conflicts between eyewitnesses, it is clear that *at least
>>>one of them is wrong*.  This conclusion is not one which a biblical
>>>literalist is willing to draw.

The problem is worse than this discussion hints. The differences between
the Gospels (especially the Synoptics) are not merely those between
eyewitnesses. Rather, they are transparent efforts to "clean up" errors
or problems in the earlier text. For example, Mark quotes his prophecy in the
Septuagint approximately correctly, from memory; Matthew quotes it
exactly right. Matthew is aware of the implication in Mark's
baptism scene that Jesus was a sinner, and hence needed baptism by
John to make him pure enough for a divine mission; hence, he adds the
passage having John tell Jesus that he has no *need* of baptism.
Matthew is aware of the implication of Jesus' illegitimacy in Mark 6:3,
and hence softens the insult to Jesus' paternity; Luke rewrites it,
removing the insult completely. These are not mere 'differences
between eyewitnesses', this is a sophisticated attempt to tidy up the
loose ends of a messy story. It's like Nixon cleaning up his damn
Watergate tape.
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: What did Judas betray?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 09:19:06

Friday October 30 1992, Bill Gripp writes to All:

jds>> The Talmud states that the Sanhedrin stopped judging capital cases
jds>> "seventy years before the destruction of the Temple". Even if seventy
jds>> is just a round number, I'm pretty sure it's more than thirty, thus
jds>> making any references to capital cases in Jesus' time fictitious.

BG> Better check your math.  If the temple was destroyed in 70AD, and
BG> Jesus was crucified in 30AD, that's a gap of 40 years and your "pretty
BG> sure it's more than thirty" is insufficient to prove your case of
BG> fiction.

Seventy is often used to mean "many", but it's generally a "many" on the close
order of seventy. That is, I wouldn't be surprised if a particular reference to
seventy referred to sixty or eighty-five, but I *would* be surprised if it were
less than fifty.

BG> Is it possible that reperucssions as a result of the crucifiction of
BG> Jesus resulted in the Sanhedrin ceasing to judge captial crimes?

Doesn't really sound plausible. On the subject of Jesus in Jewish sources of the
time there is a great, echoing silence. We know the names of the people
financing the resistance of Jerusalem, we know the names of famous families and
so forth. Nary a reference to any populist Messiah that fits Jesus'
description.

BG> If you are truely skeptical, why is the Talmud considered more
BG> reliable than the New Testament?

Because it has a lot more corroborative detail and is not a work of propaganda.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: When will K2 grow up?
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:03:51 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 7788@lib.tmc.edu, draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (E.J. Draper) writes:
> [delete re: satellite measurements prove Everest is tallest] 
> What this about K2 being taller?
>
There was speculation a few years ago, based on someone's measurement or other, that
K2 really was taller.  This speculation made national news.  The proof that whoever
had made this speculation was wrong did not make nearly as big a news splash
(as is so often the case, e.g. headline "PROMINENT PERSON X IS ACCUSED OF Y"  
[and the  acquittal shows up in small print in the bottom right corner of page 4])

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Audis (was Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives)
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:37:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Nov9123747
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

Despite all the talk, I find it hard to believe that the problem was
solely the fault of the drivers.  Even if the pedals were marginally
closer than the norm, this can not explain why such a disproportionate
number of accidents happened with Audis but not other cars.  I do not
believe in conspiracy theories, but I suspect that Audi went out of
its way to cover up the facts to prevent being sued out of business.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The settled opinion here is that religion is
Field Robotics Center,          | essentially distinct from Civil Govt and
Carnegie Mellon University      | exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | between them is injurious to both; ...that a
(412) 268-3856                  | legal establishment of religion without
                                | toleration could not be thought of, and with a
The opinions expressed are mine | toleration, is no security for public quiet &
and do not reflect the official | harmony, but rather a source itself of discord
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | & animosity; finally that these opinions are
or any other organization.      | supported by experience...  James Madison
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 2nd ammendment
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:20:22 GMT

> From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
> Message-ID: <1992Nov7.053334.26389@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
  
>>       Rick Moen writes:
>>>fact.  The U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment guarantees that
>>>_well-regulated state militias_ shall have the right to keep and
>>>bear
> 
> Read it again, Rick.
 
Well, I just did read it again, Jim, it having been some while.  
Further, I am attempting to get the relevant case law citations,
rather than just being bombarded with what I suspect are incorrect
representations about them by gun nuts.
 
Any chance that you have a point to make?
 
Cheers,
Rick M.
moen@blyth.com

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The guns of roston (wa
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:39:45 GMT

In article <2NOV199209345329@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@
skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) wrote as follows:
 
> No, I'm afraid it's not so clear-cut.  George Fletcher of Columbia
> University Law School authored the most detailed book on the 
> Bernhard Goetz trial, titled _A Crime of Self-Defense: Bernhard 
> Goetz and the Law on Trial_ (1988, The Free Press). . . .
 
I stand corrected.  NOT all constitutional scholars agree, then.   Thank 
you, Jim.  However, courts have consistently affirmed the rights of 
states to regulate arms (including but not limited to firearms) 
ownership.
 
I'm asking a lawyer friend of mine to see about some legal citations
on the on-line databases, which may cast more light on this matter.
 
Cheers,
Rick M.
moen@blyth.com

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19109 rec.org.mensa:8025
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Astrology: Scientific Research
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:47:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewse.1992Nov6.154733.16809
Organization: AT&T

In article <dhalliwe.720995882@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:
>banghartr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu (Rick Banghart, IPTV) writes:
>
>>I still maintain that the strong correlation (if it exists) points
>>to _something_ happening that requires further examination.  Even
>>if the mechanism is (for example) the tendency of people to 
>>conform to astrological "information" about themselves.
>
>   ..but that was the thrust of [someone long lost in the chain]'s
>original comment that *without* finding some logical reason why
>one item affects the other, the statistical correlation is only
>weak evidence. If, after looking for the link, you can't find an
>explanation, then you would normally reject the correlation as spurious.
>

Careful, folks.  Let's not get sloppy from the get-go.  Remember that
"weak" is a relative term, and the statement that "statistical correlation
is only weak evidence," is, at best, a generalization.

Secondly, the fact that "after looking for a link, you can't find
an explanation," relies heavily on your ability to find such a link.
If you happen to be a very good theoretician, it may be Probable
that an explanation of a possible cause does not exist, but it does
not prove it.

Thirdly, theories are never "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt".  All
we have is levels of apparent probability, period.  Theories stand
until they fall, and every theory probably has a long list of previous
theories that seemed highly probable until a more probable one came
along.  And all we EVER have is data, and the only measure we EVER have
is the probability that the predicted result will indeed happen.

And the basis of all of that is statistical correlation.  And since
you rarely have ALL possible data, this is still subject to inaccuracy.

When we use relative terms and generalizations, we often start with sloppy
premises and reasoning that is often difficult to clear up with subsequent
posts.

Just a note to keep us all honest.

GMS
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: End Time Predictions (was Oct 28)
Summary: Santeria
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:39:01 GMT

In article <1d9va2INNsqf@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Nov2.134834.1@evax.gdc.com>, byczko@evax.gdc.com writes:
> >-A serious effort by certain Jewish groups to restore the Jerusalem Temple
> > and the Mosaic system of animal sacrifices.
> 
> Does PETA know about this? :-)

You jest, but the Santoria religion is headed for the Supreme Court
on the issue of animal sacrifice.  There is also a lingering animal
abuse case for a Jewish ritual (that I thankfully never heard of as
a child) involving chickens.  

marc colten

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.motss,alt.atheism,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
From: paul@psych.toronto.edu (Paul Hastings)
Subject: Re: Correlation between sexual preference of parents and children
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:00:23 GMT

In article <01050133.huhe46@caligula.cts.com> edw%caligula@phlpa.pha.pa.us writes:
>We were having a discussion in Ethics today about something, and I was
>wondering if anyone has any information on this. By the way, I am
>interested in data here, and not everyone's opinion on the matter.
>
>Does anyone know if there is any correlation between the sexual pref-
>erences of parents and their children? I'm talking about environmental
>factors, and not genetic factors. In other words, if a child has two
>gay or lesbian parents (or one), is there an increased chance that the
>child will be gay, lesbian or bisexual?
>

The latest issue of _Child Development_ has a lead-off article by
Jan Peterson on gay and lesbian parents.  It reviews more-or-less
all of the research done to date on children of LBG people, and
distinguishes whether the research participants were gay before
or after the birth of the child, whether they have custody, whether
they're single parents or have partners, etc.  As well, it points
out the deficit of research on alternative structure families,
such as co-parenting.  Excellent article, really.

To answer your question:  Doesn't look like having a LBG parent
increases the odds of being a LBG individual.  Surprising, but
then there are lots of holes in the research to date.  Not enough
long-term work, given how late in life many people 'come out'.
Not much comparison between folks who admit to their children
that they're gay versus those who hide it.  

I recommend the article highly.

-paul
 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hastings    paul@psych.utoronto.ca          545 Dovercourt Road
University of Toronto      416-978-3990          Toronto, Ont.  M6H 2W5
M. Mark: I can teach you to dance with no intoxication.  (yeah, right!)   
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19554 alt.feminism:4379
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 1950's Darryle, damnit.
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:59:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
: In article <1992Nov11.063041.25767@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, billn@hpcvaac (bill nelson) writes:
: : The London Times, May 11, 1987 ("Smallpox vaccine triggered Aids virus in
: : Africa and Haiti") tells how the World Health Organization [vaccinated]
: : 100 million Africans (plus 14,000 Haitians working in Zaire) [...]
: 
: >Heh, heh! 100 million people. Yup - good factual reporting. I doubt
: >if they could find 100 million people to vaccinate - much less
: >accomplish the task.  Is there any independent documentation besides
: >that reputed article?
: 
: Shut up Bill.  Yes, 100 million people.  Yes, the article is for real.
: Africa is kind of big, and yes, The London Times is an easy to find
: newspaper, even in washed up places like Oregon I bet.  Breakdown by
: country, according to the article quoting WHO, starts with nearly 37
: million in Zaire.  The article only lists figures for the top 7 African
: countries, but even these add up to about 96 million people.  The more
: than decade long WHO smallpox eradication campaign is well-known and
: well-documented.

You are modifying the quote to which I was objecting. It stated that the
WHO injected 100 million Africans with the AIDS virus.  

I have no doubts that they might have innoculated 100 million people.
But not with the same contaminated batch of vaccine. Not over a ten
year period.

Bill
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa