HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I don't know
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:16:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr16.155702.10213@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>	Dream of my brother's death one week before occurence.
>
>	Dream of Mary Decker's fall in 1984 Olympics about one
>	week before occurence. Dream almost perfectly matched
>	the actual event.
>
>I've had others too. They don't come often, and I can't control them.
>I actually told friends at work about the Decker dream before it
>happened. They didn't talk to me for about two days after the actual
>event occured.
>
>People in this newsgroup have tried to tell me it was coincidence, or that
>I just didn't remember it correctly, or I embellish, or that I'm just

The trick is to unambiguously record the premonition BEFORE the event
it supposedly foretells occurrs. I suggest that the next time you have
a premonition, post it here, clearly and unambiguously. Then, two weeks
or so later, we'll see if it has come to pass.

(Actually, somebody on some other newsgroup or network, I don't recall
just where, set up a "registry" for exactly this purpose. The public
computer network is PERFECTLY suited for such purposes. And what was
the success rate of this so far? Zilch. But keep trying..... :)

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorum
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:49:23 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

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

>There are two possibilities:

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

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

I would guess most number theorists who have worked in the area (I'm
one, BTW) think (b)--or not quite (b). I think at least he probably
had a plausible argument with a gap which was not obvious, like Lame's
"proof" in 1847. The mistake in that "proof" boils down to assuming
that all cyclotomic number fields have class number 1, and is not the
sort of thing which would have been obvious to Fermat.

Fermat never publically claimed to have a proof--he may have realized
himself there was a gap in his reasoning.
--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Another Strange Creature Sighting?
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:21:11 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

I recently heard some vague talk about a new (to me, anyway) creature 
that supposedly roams around Minnisota or Michigan or someplace around there.
I can't recall the name, but got the impression that it was along the lines
of a Bigfoot or Yeti kind of story.  Can anyone figure out what I'm talking
about from the paltry information I have provided?

-Scott 

--------------------
Scott I. Chase
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Correcting past injustices  [survey result and comments]
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:04:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Apr7.200440.23774
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <GERRY.92Apr7090049@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
|> The corrected verison of my original question is:
|> 
|> >The following is a hypothetical situation, please to not add any
|> >conditions other than those stated.  What I would like from all of you
|> >is to respond to the following question by email.  In one week's
|> >time, I'll present the results and the discussion can begin in
|> >earnest.  PLEASE DO NOT POST YOUR RESPONSE.  I would like to get as
|> >many unbiased responses as possible.
|> >
|> >Given a population that is composed of two sub-groups, call them X and
|> >Y.  Due to past history, the population distribution in industry I
|> >heavily favors group X.   Given a single opening for a job in industry
|> >I for which there are N equally (and I mean equally) qualified
|> >applicants,  (100-P)% from group X and P% from group Y, where P<<100,  
|> >and you must hire only one person, how would you make your choice? 

Now that you've posted the results of your survey, let's fill in a 
specific example which fits the limitations proposed.

Let's say that the industry is Polka Bands.  Group X consists of 
midwesterners (possibly of Polish extraction) and group Y is 
everyone else.  Suppose further that the present balance of
employment is _exactly_ the same as the ratio of applicants!
That is, P% of the existing Polka Band performers are in 
group Y and P% of the applicants are in group Y.  There
is, in fact, no evidence of discrimination in _hiring_ in this
case at all.  The discrimination exists in the choices of the
applicants themselves.

The fact is that those people who responded to this survey by
selecting the `minority' Y have jumped the gun. As stated, this
survey question involves no evidence (of even suggestion) of
discrimination at all.  This being the case, even supporters
of affirmative action should not have recommended biased
hiring based on the stated conditions.  This exposes an 
unfortunate tendency in our country of assuming wrong doing
on the part of industry whenever the raw percentages of 
its employees are not in line with the general population.
The present law (which everyone _claims_ is not a quota
law) uses such raw percentages as the test for discrimination.
It is, as we've seen, an inappropriate test.

J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: I don't know
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:57:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.085305@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.154019.16028@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>,
>kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
 
>   The explaination, then, is that intuition is the result of subconcious
>integration of knowledge combined with speculation that is passed along to the
>concious at random times for not well understood reasons.  My intuition is
>often wrong; sometimes it suceedes stunningly.  

Yes, this is how one might explain it using current "accepted" views of
how the brain works. There is obviously much more involved that we don't
know about.
 
>> Has it crossed your mind that psi and intuition might be related?
 
>   Yes.  I suspect much that is attributed to psi is actually normal brain
>function of which a person is not aware.  Thus intuition is often mistaken 
>for an external phenomena and gets called psi.

In some cases yes, but I have a hard time explaining my experiences using
just the above mentioned definition of intuition.
(ie).
	Dream of my brother's death one week before occurence.

	Dream of Mary Decker's fall in 1984 Olympics about one
	week before occurence. Dream almost perfectly matched
	the actual event.

I've had others too. They don't come often, and I can't control them.
I actually told friends at work about the Decker dream before it
happened. They didn't talk to me for about two days after the actual
event occured.

People in this newsgroup have tried to tell me it was coincidence, or that
I just didn't remember it correctly, or I embellish, or that I'm just
lying, but these experiences and some other's have led me to believe
that I was able to detect something external to me that supplied me
information before the fact. And....I don't know how this was done. I
don't know what to call it, except that psi is the closest thing I've
read about that might fit.

I really want to know why I knew about my brother's death a week early.
The dreams were so vivid I contacted my other brother about them. Phone
records later proved I had called my other brother a week before our
brother's death. At no other time in my life had I ever dreamed like this
or attempted to tell other's about such dreams. Somehow I knew that the
dreams were special. 

I don't expect that telling other's about these experiences will convince
them of anything, but it might give them some idea of where I'm coming
from, and why my default assumptions about psi are a bit more positive
than theirs, even though we really don't know what happened.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The Nazca "Airfields"?
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:37:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA
Originator: lip@s1.gov


	A curious thought occurs to me about the Nazca "airfields".
They don't look much like "real" airfields. Every one that I have ever
seen has at least one paved runway with a paved parking area nearby.
The usual surface, at least for American commercial airports, is
concrete. There are usually also markings on all these surfaces to
help the pilot out, such as a centerline on the runway. There is
almost always additional equipment, such as runway lights and radar
sets, not to mention a control tower. Where is all this equipment?

	And why aren't there any tire prints from the supposed
aircraft? There are certainly tire prints from various present-day
vehicles there. The pavements of airports are designed for the great
weights of some present-day airliners; can you imagine the ruts that a
747 would create in the Nazca valley soil?

	Has anyone done a serious study of the possibilities for
finding extraterrestrial artifacts, or even an extraterrestrial base,
on the Earth? A good candidate might be inside a mountain. That way,
it will have natural concealment :-). Access to the outside would have
to be by way of tunnels. A power source would require a heat sink, and
probably a heat source; being near the ocean is a good way to insure
the former need. The latter can be made available from being in a
geologically active area; geothermal energy is essentially renewable.
But being in a geologically active area has one side effect: the
possibility of earthquakes or even volcanic eruptions. One might get
around that side effect of close-up heat by drilling several
kilometers downward.

/Loren
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: misc
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:59:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.021437.9844@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>If you stand by a beach long enough, you may see pretty patterns in the
>sand appear by chance. However, because the environment is harsh, the
>wind blows away the patterns. The patterns are only a transitory form
>of order, within the disorder. They do not sustain themselves.

And if you wait long enough at a peat bog, you'll eventually have a chance of
finding diamonds, which, though transitory, are somewhat more long-lived than
your patterns in the sand.

>So the point that needs to be answered to stop people bringing up this
>subject over and over again is:
>
>How did life bootstrap itself into existence, against the prevailing
>disorder?

If simple, self-sustaining systems are possible, then if you try recombining
the elements of those systems randomly for long enough, you'll eventually
create such a system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8071 rec.music.classical:5813
From: dbarker@camins.camosun.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Album by bizzare British spiritualist
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:53:47 GMT
Organization: Camosun College

In article <1992Apr13.161316.7018@psych.toronto.edu>, stephan@psych.toronto.edu (Stephan Hamann) writes:
> 
> 
> 
>  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!

Her name is Rosemary Brown, but I think she has now joined Beethoven, et al.,
in the great blue yonder.
-- 
Deryk Barker
Computer Science Dept.
Camosun College,
Victoria, BC
Canada
From: crew@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: misc
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:33:29 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Apr7.021437.9844@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augea
 n.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>  
> Life NOW, is obviously self-sustaining. Life at the START is not
> obviously self-sustaining.
> 
  Is not life *by definition* that which is "self-sustaining?"
 
> When a semblance of life happens by chance out of some chaotic primordal
> stew, it has to somehow sustain itself *at that instant* against the
> prevailing disorder.
> 
> If you stand by a beach long enough, you may see pretty patterns in the
> sand appear by chance. However, because the environment is harsh, the
> wind blows away the patterns. The patterns are only a transitory form
> of order, within the disorder. They do not sustain themselves.
  
   They do not dissolve into "disorder."  They change to a different order. 
   Or, the patterns themselves were only part of a larger, extremely
   complicated order.  To recognize a few selected "pretty patterns" as "order" 
   is a human trait.  The order/disorder distinction is a property of the mind,
   not the universe.    

> 
> So the point that needs to be answered to stop people bringing up this
> subject over and over again is:
> 
> How did life bootstrap itself into existence, against the prevailing
> disorder?
> 
  Similarly, the distinction between life/non-life may be somewhat of an 
  arbitrary distinction imposed by human observers.   

> I don't pretend to know the answer. But if someone does then they can put
> finally put the matter to rest.

  The fact that something is marvelously unlikely does not require us to accept
a supernatural explanation for its existence.  On the other hand, real faith in
a creator will *not* be hampered by the creation of an adequate scientific
account of the origin of life.  

----------
Kroozer 

Being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I don't know.
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:16:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr8.170554.7595@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes...
>This is why I have never
>understood the atheistic viewpoint. There is no way an atheist could
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>have reached his viewpoint based on any real knowledge. The atheist's
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>viewpoint is based on a lack of knowledge (If I can't see it, it
>doesn't exist). The only really correct viewpoint in this case is
>agnostic (I don't know).

Why do you think this?  To say that "the atheist's viewpoint is based
on a lack of knowledge" is to ignore many of the arguments for atheism,
both positive and negative.  For a fairly comprehensive compendium
of arguments for atheism, I recommend Michael Martin, _Atheism: A 
Philosophical Justification_, 1990, Temple University Press.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Kirilian Photography
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 23:22:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.173755.1@acfcluster.nyu.edu>, mullignj@acfcluster.nyu.edu writes:
>Hi, I've got a question concerning Kirilian photography (that may not be 
>spelled right, but I think you'll all know what I'm talking about.  Could
>someone explain exactly what it is and whether it is legitimate or not.
>Actually I'd prefer alot of feedback on this issue.  You see a friend and I
>are having a little argument about it, now I won't tell you what sides we're
>taking, but suffice to say we want to hear what the rest of you think and 
>know about it.

You turn out all the lights in a room, attach a high-voltage, low-current power
supply to the object to be photographed, and photograph it.  So far, I've not
run across ANY report of ANYTHING done with Kirlian photography which isn't
easily explained by the combination of a corona discharge and sloppy practices
(e.g., not cleaning instrumentation between the time a Kirlian photograph is
taken of an intact leaf and the time one is taken of the same leaf with a
section cut from it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8008 talk.origins:4231 talk.religion.misc:6709
From: jrblack@ns-mx.uiowa.edu (James Roger Black)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Historical Jesus (Was:  Does evolution affect belief in God?)
Date: 11 Apr 92 06:10:48 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

In article <z5nj-kg@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu 
(Roger Squires) writes (quoting an unnamed author):

|> 	   "To our Roman authors the Christians of the
|> 	   1st century were a pitiable lot.  And they give us never a
|> 	   clue as to whether a man Christ actually lived and was
|> 	   crucified, or whether he was a fiction Rome herself pieced
|> 	   together in an effort to create a religious tool by which
|> 	   further to unite the diverse peoples under her dominion."

... which no doubt is why Rome spent three centuries trying to exterminate 
that same "fiction".  Give me a break.

Any author who can seriously suggest that the pagan Roman government
invented Christianity for purposes of its own is so hopelessly biased
(or just plain ignorant) that I'd have trouble taking seriously *anything* 
he said.

Can you please provide a reference for this?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Roger Black                                             roger-black@uiowa.edu
 Disclaimer:                My employer doesn't even know I have any opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mullignj@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Kirilian Photography
Date: 11 Apr 92 22:37:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: acfclust.1992Apr11.173755.1
Organization: New York University

Hi, I've got a question concerning Kirilian photography (that may not be 
spelled right, but I think you'll all know what I'm talking about.  Could
someone explain exactly what it is and whether it is legitimate or not.
Actually I'd prefer alot of feedback on this issue.  You see a friend and I
are having a little argument about it, now I won't tell you what sides we're
taking, but suffice to say we want to hear what the rest of you think and 
know about it.
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Consensus (was: Re: Matriarchial "tribes")
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:08:53 EST

In article <1992Apr4.035416.18195@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN) writes:
> In article <1992Mar30.124335.7684@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, 
[...]
> 
> First, elucidate what you call "the scientific method".  We may be using
> somewhat different definitions, and I don't intend to get into a "definition
> war" to cross-purposes.
Agreed.  Just trying for some clarity.
> 
>>                    I read this comment as saying that skepticism is a subset
>>of the scientific method.  Correct?  
> 
> It is, in my opinion.  So is mathematics.  Useful tools for lots of things.
OK.
> 
>>                                     If so, you can be a skeptic but not a
>>scientist, but if you are a scientist you are a skeptic (superset).
> 
> Is there something wrong with this idea?  I can be skeptical of the claims of
> a parapsychologist _without_ having to be a parapsychologist, and so can
> Martin Gardner, for example.  Now, he (and I, humbly) may _act_like_
> a scientist is supposed to when we apply a skeptical mind-set to parapsychology,
> and in fact may actually be doing the work that a parapsychologist _ought_
> to have done, but our lack of degrees and published papers in parapsychology
> (and BTW, our disagreement with the "consensus of parapsychologists") in no 
> way a priori invalidate that skepticism.  So, to all practical purposes, yes, 
> you can be a skeptic without being a scientist.   Skepticism is a tool, useful 
> in the sciences, but surely useful in other areas as well.  Other areas do not 
> fall into the mandate of sci.skeptic, however, so I'll not expand this thread 
> in that direction.
I guess that acting like a scientist means you are a scientist.  My
interpretation would be that taking those steps (applying skepticism) are the
first steps to the method (whatever the rest of it is).
> 
[...]
> > So, either skepticism _isn't_ science, or else "consensus" comparisons aren't 
> good (science or skepticism, take you pick.)
> Frankly, I pick "all of the above."  Neither is skepticism science, nor are
> "consensus" comparisons skepticism _or_ science.
However, are "consensus" comparisons an "acceptable" form of Occam's razor
given the amount of time we have to deal with these problems?

GXKambic
standard disclaimer