HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpark@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Park)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Time essay by James Randi
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:17:27 GMT
Reply-To: mpark@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Hi all.  Don't know why I haven't seen this mentioned here
(maybe everybody already knows, maybe nobody cares...) but
in last week's TIME magazine ("The College Crunch" issue, 4/13)
there is an essay by James Randi that should give all sci.skeptic
readers warm fuzzies.  Just FYI.


-- 
Ciao-abunga!           +-------------------------------------+
Michael Park           | This space intentionally left blank |
mpark@u.washington.edu +-------------------------------------+
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Last Statement
Date: 6 Apr 1992 10:29:40 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com


I was away for a while and so missed the last round "Final Statements" on
the "Chomsky Affair", but it would seem only fair that --given the range of
views attributed to him-- the last words go to Chomsky himself.  I
apologize for this late addition but, it seems to me, that these brief
passages might be of some use to those who have an interest in Chomsky's
actual views on these matters.

First, a specific point.  The following comes from Chomky's 1981 article in
the Nation entitled "His Right to Say it" (this is presumably a legitimate
source as it has been quoted extensively here, but --for some reason-- the
following passage was omitted):

      Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and
      have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book _Peace in
      the Middle East_ where I describe the holocaust as "the most
      fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history").


And finally, a passage from Chomsky that he has applied to the question of
the existence of Auschwitz:

      By accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain
      issues one has already lost one's humanity.

N
From: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Geller
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:32:16 GMT
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Apr8.002938.2140@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> 
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> The article said that the spoon bending can be done with the aid of a 
certain
> chemical, which you rub on to the spoon.

This is unlikely.  However, there are many ways of bending spoons.  
Proprietors of magic shops make their living by selling such tricks, and 
if you really want to know, you should be able to buy it.  I don't want to 
put them out of business, so I'll only give you a hint: When a magician 
says, "The trick is about to begin," chances are, it's already finished.

That's one of the reasons that it is so easy to fool scientists.  Tell a 
scientist, "The experiment will begin at 4:00," and he or she will 
believe you.  However, you might have done it at 3:45.

Eric Pepke                                    INTERNET: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET:   pepke@fsu
Florida State University                      SPAN:     scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052                    BITNET:   pepke@fsu

Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
From: jasonh@aeras.uucp (Jason Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I don't know.
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:26:29 GMT
Reply-To: jasonh@aeras.UUCP (Jason Harris)
Organization: Arix Corporation, San Jose, CA.

In article <schumach.702865405@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>Only animals "really" know something only through experience, not people.
>If someone claims that they cannot "really" know something by excercising their
>mentality, we must suspect that they don't have a mentality.

What do you think we are? Fallen angels? Sorry guy, we are animals just like
the rest of them, different in abilities to be sure, but animals never the
less. As for mental activities I have seen many examples of animals other than 
humans going through processes of thought. Many animals are capable of 
planning action mentally and then executing that plan. The idea that
humans are the chosen ones on this planet is absurd. It is unfortunate and
disturbing that that many people still hold this view.

Jason.
From: hsr4@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Album by bizzare British spiritualist
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:56:33 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

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! 
> 
> Stephan Hamann
> Dept. of Psychology
> University of Toronto
> 
> stephan@psych.toronto.edu

All I can do is offer confirmation, based on personal recollection, that she 
does/did exist - I recall seeing a documentary about her, but that was quite a
few years ago.  I believe her output was examined by 'an expert' who proclaimed
it to be vaguely similar to works already in existence, and who, again if
memory serves, expressed surprise that after all these years presumably knocking
up scores beyond the grave, the likes of Beethoven et al still sounded the way
they did when they were alive (in other words, one would have expected the style
to have altered somewhat, unless of course one's creativity becomes stultified
once the old rigor mortis has set in...).

She clearly played safe by not doing, say, a Sex Pistols Album From The Grave 
- I don't think gobbing and puking on the interviewer and throwing lager cans 
at the camera would have gone down too well...
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Peter G. Q. Brooks HSR4@UK.AC.OX.VAX |                                     |
| Health Services Research Unit        |   Bill Stickers Is Innocent, OK ?   |
| Dept of Public Health & Primary Care |                                     |
| University of Oxford                 |                                     |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: WILL OUR GVT IMPLANT OUR CHILDREN?
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:42:02 GMT

In article <9204150002.AA14432@echidna.swdc.stratus.com>, lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
>Another obvious use is for felons - especially those on parole or out on
>bail pending an appeal. Their location, and perhaps their activities, 
>could be easily monitored.

Actually, something like this is already in use.  Not an implant, but a
bracelet designed in such a way that any attempt to tamper with it causes it to
transmit a signal to that effect.
>After felons comes the mentally retarded, 
>altzheimers patients,

Actually, some Alzheimers patients might appreciate the availability of such a
device.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: _The Mismeasure of Man_
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:20:20 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <GERRY.92Apr12165028@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

>My question is this though: does Dr. Gould believe/suggest/imply that
>all people have the same mental potential at birth? 

	I think Gould's point was that between _groups_ of people there
would be no (or vanishingly little) differences in mental potential. 
There is certainly evidence that between _individuals_ there are diff-
erences in mental ability due to heredity. 

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorum
From: geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz (Geoff McCaughan)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:34:18   M
Organization: The Equinox Network CHCH NZ (Node SATORI)

amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:

> In article <1992Apr8.004108.2697@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> 
>   dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> >
> >What's tantalizing about FLT is this fabled note that Fermat wrote before
> >he died saying that he found an "elegant proof."
> >
> >There are two possibilities:
> >
> >                  (a) he really found the proof, which is now lost
> >                  (b) he had a mental abberation and was mistaken
> or
>                    (c) he was perfectly sane, but like so many other
>                        mathematicians before and after him, he made a
>                        mistake
>                    (d) he was lying
                     (e) he wrote it on April 1st

| Geoff - Sysop Equinox (equinox.gen.nz) +64 (3) 3854406 (4 Lines)
| Email:  geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz
|         "If I post something lucid, is that satorial eloquence?"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Luke-Acts and further ramblings (The Historical Jesus IV:  Luke)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 17:44:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Keywords: historical jesus, creation/evolution debate, gospel of Luke

Thank you for a very well-reasoned discussion of the problems involving
the dating of Luke and Acts.
  
What should be emphasised, however, is that many scholars accept that
Acts is not a single work by a single author, but, like other such
books, a patchwork of several different sources. For example, the
"conversion of Paul" story is related three times, with significant
inconsistencies in the different accounts, which strongly suggests
a patchwork from different authors. There appears to be two tellings
of the Pentecost story in Acts, and two accounts of Peter's speech;
it has been convincingly argued that these are simply two different
authors' accounts of the same events. Harnack called these sources
"Jerusalem A" and "Jerusalem B" (see the "Interpreter's Bible",
Abingdon Press). Obviously, the "we" passages of Paul's companion
constitute another such segment. It is incontestable that "the
action in Acts" is frozen around the year 60, but there are good
reasons for assigning a later date to the book as we know it today.
(I would add that the doctrine of the "Ascension" was a relatively
late one, circa 100; in the Pauline view, Jesus went straight from
his grave to Heaven without stopping or being sighted in between.)
I explain this at length in "The Making of the Messiah."
-- 
  
        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

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: Humanoids On Mars (Again)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:54:28 GMT

In article <22686@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes:
>You make the assumption that your hypothetical predator has a significant
>probability to evolve in a world dominated by a very different neural
>architecture.  I imagine that if life exists in abundance throughout the
>universe that the "best engineering solution" to various problems are rare
>indeed.  Evolution is a highly contingent process.  Organisms are committed by
>their genetic inheritance to a very limitted range of variation.  For example, 
>on our planet, the genetic code itself is highly stable over time, as are a
>variety of things such as the method of signal transmission in nerve cells, the
>organisation of  cellular organelles, the structure of some key proteins, etc. 
>I could go on all day. 

In my inventory of things all intelligent life should possess, I forgot to add
a sense that required a huge ammount of signal processing to be at all useful,
and that was a powerful survival tool.  All higher life forms on earth have
sight, or evolved from sighted forms (eg cave dwelling things).  Looking at
insects, eyes force a creature into having a brain, or at least, enough neurons
in one place to evolve a brain.  Starfish, which have a distributed, five-fold
symmetric nervous system, do not have eyes.
From: jrblack@ns-mx.uiowa.edu (James Roger Black)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Endo- vs. exo-heresies (was Re: Consensus: Too Sluggish or Too Hasty?)
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:54:37 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

In article <1992Apr1.060950.4576@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> 
|> 	Heresies from inside (endoheresies)
|> 	and
|> 	Heresies from outside (exoheresies)
|> 
|> ... The endoheretic has studied and worked with the
|> orthodoxy in detail, while the exoheretic has not. 

At the risk of starting a fruitless flame war, it should be pointed out
that Ufology is an "endoheresy".  Over the years, many of the "big
names" in UFO research have been astronomers, physicists, military
intelligence officers, pilots, historians--precisely the people whose
expertise ought to have debunked the whole thing in a minute.  Perhaps
the best example is Hynek, who spent ten years as the Air Force's paid
debunker and then decided there was really something there after all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Roger Black                                             roger-black@uiowa.edu
 Disclaimer:                My employer doesn't even know I have any opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: haynes@apple.com (Charles Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: criticism of psychics applied to other fields
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:00:44 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer

In article <82780@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> 
> In article <GENE.FUSCO.92Mar26094816@pink_floyd.FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM> Gene.Fusco@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM writes:
> 
> >In another interview, along the same lines, one psychic stated that
> >her powers failed her when she tried to apply them for "personal gain".
> >
> >I guess she read palms and tea leaves for her customers for free....
> 
> 	A common critique of psychic phenomena is "if it works, why
> don't they use it for their own gain". Let's apply this critique to
> two other fields claiming to be science, sociology and psychology.
> Sociology claims to understand the workings of groups of people,
> psychology claims to understand the workings of individual minds (*)
> If these are real sciences, how come there aren't sociologists with
> huge cults, or psychologists manipulating people to get what they want?
> I know if I somehow understood how the female brain worked, I would
> dedicate my life to becoming the biggest babe hound of all time 8-)

It is unfortunately common for psychologists to take advantage of their
patients. There are NO known psychics who can use their powers for their
own gain. I claim that applied sociology is called "advertising" and "PR"
and it works quite well thank you very much.

Your questions are valid, the answers are as above. So the question remains,
why don't psychics use it for their own gain? Why assume they don't?

	-- Charles
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:7867 alt.paranormal:1219
From: fnord@pine.circa.ufl.edu (Elmer Fudd, Millionaire)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: studying psi in the US
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:35:57 GMT
Reply-To: fnord@pine.circa.ufl.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University Domain (edu)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

I'm curious of any programs in Parapsychology at colleges/universities in
the USA.  Are there any that offer a good number of courses?  Are there
degree programs? (is it respectable yet?)

I would be interested in finding out more about the programs in this field,
as well as names, places, and such.

Email is welcome.
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Accupuncture (wasRe: Consensus...)
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:13:46 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <3626@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:

>>Also, does acupuncture qualify?

>No.  Acupuncture traditionally was a chinese treatment for diseases.
>Only under the communist regime the so-called acupuncture anesthesia 
>was promulgated, but it was largely a fraud and certainly not tested
>rigorously.  The reports of patients happily praising Chairman Mao
>during operations are probably slightly edited (patients screaming
>in agony the only words they were allowed to scream).  After the 
>cultural revolution was over, the colossal acupuncture fraud was 
>exposed.

[Placebo effect, lack of double-blind trials]

>In conclusion the investigators say: acupuncture is probably an
>enormously complicated system based on the idea that if you hit
>yourself with a hammer on your thumb, you won't feel other things
>anymore for some time.

Two things spring to mind here.

First, in one of his "Zoovet" books, David Taylor (I think that was
his name) reports witnessing a major abdominal operation on a horse
during a visit to China.  The operation was in fact unnecessary: it
was only carried out to demonstrate to Taylor the use of accupuncture
in anasthesia (Yes, Taylor did wonder about the ethics of this, but
was too curious about the technique to object).  The horse appeared
completely unconcerned about having a foot or so of its gut removed.

Secondly, I saw a documentary on TV last year.  It concerned an
Italian doctor who uses psychological anasthesia.  There is some stuff
about being in the right frame of mind and having liquid saliva in the
mouth (dry mouth = fear = expectation of pain), but basically he tells
his patients that this will not hurt, and it doesn't.  The documentary
showed an operation on a woman to straighten her legs.  This involved
breaking the bones and then resetting them with nuts and bolts to hold
them together.  Gruesome stuff, but she felt absolutely no pain.  This
was not her first operation though, so the doctor might have chosen a
known "good" patient for the film crew.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: studying psi in the US
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:53:00 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr7.151825.7313@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) writes...
>In article <34991@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> fnord@pine.circa.ufl.edu writes:
>>I'm curious of any programs in Parapsychology at colleges/universities in
>>the USA.  Are there any that offer a good number of courses?  Are there
>>degree programs? (is it respectable yet?)
>>
>>I would be interested in finding out more about the programs in this field,
>>as well as names, places, and such.
> 
>I am not aware of any "programs in Parapsychology" at colleges in the
>USA offering a good number of courses, although there may be some.  For
>the most part, parapsychology if addressed at all in university
>offerings, is treated in a course or two given by a professor with the
>interest, most often in a psychology department.  Most professional
>researchers, when asked where or how to study parapsychology recommend
>getting a sound education in a standard professional discipline like
>psychology, physics, medicine, etc., then from that foundation proceed
>with research in the field of interest.
> 
>Roger

Doesn't John F. Kennedy University still have a parapsychology program?
And didn't Jeffrey Mishlove get a parapsychology Ph.D. from Berkeley?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Endo- vs. exo-heresies (was Re: Consensus: Too Sluggish or Too Hasty?)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:39:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

[Stuff about why not too many scientists believe there's anything to UFOs]

>As for military intelligence officers, pilots, and historians, while
>I consider them worthy people and all that, they are *not* scientists,
>and their participation in a scientific debate does not make it an
>"endo-heresy."

As an aside, I have just been informed, in all due seriousness, that recent
polls indicate that some 80% of the American populace believe UFOs have
other than "mundane" explanations (i.e. are extraterrestrial in origin).

This shows up, in two ways, the sad state of critical thinking and
education in this country.  One, (assuming the figure is correct) that so
many people will believe without question such outrageous ideas.  Two, that
people think that matters of fact can be "proven" by popularity polls.

I guess if 80% of the people believe the Earth is flat, then it must be so.
-- 

Anson Kennedy
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

                  "If I had been the Virgin Mary, I would have said 'No.'"
                                      -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)