HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Date: 3 Oct 1992 23:38:38 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <LEET.92Oct2093956@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>Uh, if we're "on our way to becoming a third-world nation", it's not
>due to the citizens who were taught after 1981 (who are generally
>still too young to have worked much after college) but due to the
>citizens who were taught between the time of the Scopes trial and
>1981.

I'd place it more on the citizens who were taught between the time of the HUAC
hearings of the '50s and the present.

>I refuse to be so rash as to draw any conclusions about science
>teaching's effect on economic viability of a nation, since both Japan
>and the former USSR have taught evolution exclusively during this
                ----
>century,

Lamarkianism hardly qualifies as evolution.  It's just another religion.

>and have not performed similarly in the world marketplace.

Gee, you just made the point for us.  Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:49:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.vn#pa5=.payner
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep26.145922.22060@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <c#!p3ta.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.164716.17410@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>> 
>>>I never said that anything should or should not be defended, only
>>>what *I* choose to defend.  Your bias is really showing in your
>>>posting!  Only *you* can determine which religious beliefs *you*
>>>should agree with.  Because you can't make up your mind, doesn't
>>>mean that everyone elses religious beliefs are bogus or
>>>necessarily superstition.
>>
>>Without getting involved in the previous discussin, this brought a 
>>question to mind. Beliefs are real, whether or not whatever is belived
>>in is real or bogus.
>>
>>But how does one differentiate "religious beliefs" from "superstition"?
>> 
>
>>Rich
>>
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>Rich, the dictionary defines religious beliefs as those beliefs
>concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe
>especially belief or worship in God or gods.  Superstition, on the
>other hand is defined as an irrational belief in the ominous
>significance of a particular thing or circumstance. Therfore, in
>my mind, if somone has a set of beliefs that deal basically with
>the first definition, then even if the set of beliefs consist of
>something which we may think as irrational doom & gloom, I would
>put it in the first category.  If however, I have an isolated
>belief e.g. if I knock on wood three times, I am averting
>disaster, this would be a superstition since it does not tie in
>any way with the first definition.  Does this make sense to you?

So are you then saying that 'knock[ing] on wood three times' to
avert disaster does not related to 'the cause, nature, or purpose
of the universe'?  I am not sure that I do follow you. 
 
>-- 
>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


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:40:51 EST

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:
>>A study could be done to determine if knocking on wood statistically changed
>>the number of lottery tickets won by those knocking on wood as opposed to the
>>control group.
> Sounds familiar...
>>A study could be done to determine if religious beliefs changed the cure rate
>>for a series of terminal diseases.  (This has been tried, I believe.)
> All that would tell you is how benificial to the human health is that set of
> religious beliefs.  It does not tell you anything about the validity of those
> beliefs unless that religious belief defined itself in terms of physical
> health (which is extremely unlikely).

Nope.  At this point, IMHO you are trying to weasel out of the situation.  If
belief in <any parameter> failed to make a significant objective change under
controlled conditions, then the belief in x does not affect the appropriate
variable.  You may choose to continue to believe in x, but it will then be a
subjective belief, rather than objective.  Have you been saying that all along?

>>Of course, you are correct in saying that eternal salvation cannot be tested
>>for.  I agree with that.  But there are a number of issues that could be tested
>>for.  Study the correlation between the size of the bank accounts of
>>televangelists, who claim to save people, and the size of their television
>>audience.  
> 
> All that would tell you is how genuine the televangelists are, not
> how genuine their beliefs are.  Given any belief, I could probably
> always find a group of people who publicly espouse those beliefs
> and yet do not practice them personally.  That does not make the
> religious belief itself invalid.

Left off the smiley on this one.  However to follow up, there appears  to be no
manner in which you wish to test for the validity of beliefs, be they
superstition or religion, in an objective manner.
>>
>>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.

GXKambic
sd
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: that time of the month for the holy mother...
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:54:51 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <92273.193134RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
>we've all heard about statues or paintings of mary or jesus or some saint
>crying, or sometimes crying blood.

[A debunker demonstrates these tricks on TV, and is asked how it is done]

>the dude responds, "a true charlatan never reveals the tricks of his trade,"
>or some such.
>
>this left me feeling very unsatisfied.  i mean, up until that point the guy
>was very convincing.  if he just said how he did it, it would've been even
>more convincing.

There are probably half a dozen ways of doing such an effect, and more
will be invented in the future.  So if the debunker demonstrates such
an effect and then says "I did it this way" then the real charlatans
will do two things:

1: Stop using that particular dodge and use another one instead.

2: Say "look you can see I'm not faking it, its not like <debunker> on
   TV.  Therefore it must be a miracle".

One of the important things that debunkers try to get over is that,
just because you cannot see how something was done, that does not make
it a miracle.  Also, professional magicians (this guy might well be
one) take grave exception to having their secrets revealed.  Crying
statues have been around for a very long time, so the gimmicks that
can used to make the statue cry are probably well known in the
magicians world.  Hence the debunker might not have been at liberty to
reveal his methods.

>but as is, for all i know, he could've snuck into some church where
>mary was crying blood, and stolen her.  obviously that's not what i
>believe, but the guy is asking for as much faith as the fanatics are.

No, because such a dodge would not work.  Crying statues are alledged
to cry because God is working a miracle.  God would know that the
statue was being used by a debunker with no faith, and so would not
turn on the taps.

Paul.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:25:07 GMT

In article <schnitzi.717350702@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
}ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
}>Read an article in the Post yesterday which talked about a study
}>showing that the average human temperature is 98.2 degrees, not
}>98.6 degrees as everyone had thought.  The only explanation they
}>had was the thermometers have gotten more accurate lately...sounds
}>kind of far reaching to me seeing we've had thermometers capable
}>of registering .1 degree variation for quite a long time now.
}>Question: if scientists can't get a mundane fact correct such as
}>the average human temperature for over 100 years (the study that
}>established the average temperature was done over a century ago
}>with I believe quite a large sample rate), what makes them think
}>that any of their other more complex "facts" are accurate?  Please,
}>this is only a genuine query.
}>-- 
}
}*Sigh*  So who's to say the average temperature hasn't dropped?  
}
}The point you should be learning from this is that the
}scientific community corrects itself in light of new evidence
}presented to it.

}Feel free to reject what scientists claim are "facts" now, if you
}like.  Just pray you don't get sick.

What _I_ took this was somewhat differently than presented by the
headline.  One system had (I think) something like 60,000 people
monitored for 20+ years.  Another had ~600 people for a few weeks.
I'd want to see the error bars on these EMVs before _I_ would
want to give any conclusion.
From: ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Date: 30 Sep 1992 02:50:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


   The source of this thread was a photo in the local paper
in Albany, NY , _The Times Union_. The photo was of an "experiment"
conducted at a local school to interest school kids in "science".
   I was doubtful at first but a friend strenuously claimed he
had been conducting this "experiment" for years. The imprimatur
of this "reputable" newspaper, that it was conducted in
a school's science class, and the statements of my usually reliable
friend, got me to buy it.  
   The moral is: don't believe everything you read in the papers or
what your friends tell you.

   Let me be the first person in the history of the net to
say that all flames are well deserved.



P.S.
   
   A true skeptic is never afraid to admit he's wrong.
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:57:22 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox

In article <kjm.71.0@buc.edu.au>, kjm@buc.edu.au (Kevin Moore) writes:
|> In article <BvEEEE.1rK@fc.hp.com> rjn@FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes:
|> 
|> >When the majority of seat-holders on the NYSE are picking stocks by the
|> >stars, I'll start paying attention :-)
|> 
|> So THAT's why the world economy is in such a mess! ;-)

Forbes Magazine did an article a while back on picking stocks. Their method:
a dartboard. The dartboard pick outperformed something like 2/3 of the "top"
analysts on The Street! Personally, I would trust the stars long before I
would trust some of these "analysts".


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lauren Stratford's _Satan's Underground_
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:39:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct5.013325.16288@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes...
>In article <3OCT199211533698@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes in part:
> 
>|> Surely both the publisher and these clinical psychologists must be aware
>|> of the details of these criticisms.  
>An extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof!  
> 
>Publishers definitely do NOT research the books they publish, unless
>they fear libel.  Psychologists are often poorly informed or worse.

In this case, the new publisher had to buy the rights to the book from
the previous publisher, which had discontinued the book because of the
criticisms.  The psychologists in question wrote an afterword which
alludes to the criticisms but does not respond to them (except by
misrepresenting them).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17354 talk.religion.misc:17581
From: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:19:47 GMT
Reply-To: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.

w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk writes:

>  If anyone is interested there is a recently published short book
>"Questioning Christian Origins", (1982), by J.K.Elliott, who the cover
>of the book says is a lecturer in New Testament Language and 
>Literature in the Department of Theology at the University of Leeds, 
>United Kingdom.

>  He discusses the event in the NT from a skeptical viewpoint,
>where to get closer to the true historical events you must try to 
>eliminate later additions to the story.
>  
>  For instance he argues that after Jesus's death there was a "conflict"
>between different groups of followers, so when the gospels were written
>the writers took the opportunity to attack the members and/or beliefs of 
>the losing groups.

>   Among the groups which lost out were the family of Jesus, the original
>diciples, and the Jewish people.

>ps - those UK netters who wonder how the Bishop of Durham can criticise
>those things he has  (eg the virgin birth) while still claiming 
>to be a Christian, might find the answer in this book (or some similar 
>one).

I should have added that the book is arose from articles published in 
the magazine "History Today".
>  
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:38:43 GMT

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? 

Yes.  I recall that a survey of high school biology teachers recently
showed that about 1/3 of them were creationists.

Two well-organized attempts to legislate equal time for creation
"science" in the public schools have gone down in flames, but there
are still some teaching it without a state-level requirement to do so.

(Schools teaching creationism is a topic of concern which is frequently
discussed in _NCSE Reports_.  Write to the National Center for Science
Education -- NCSE / P.O. Box 9477 / Berkeley, CA 94709 -- and ask for
a sample issue of the publication.)
--
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Son of Creationist Crapola.
Date: 3 Oct 1992 20:52:31 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep30.022307.15291@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>Actually there has been work done on evolutionary algorithms, where
>algorithms are randomly changed, and the more successful ones are kept
>and allowed to reproduce, and the less successful ones are eliminated.

I understand that in one such research program, one algorithm came up with the
(successful) strategy of appending its name to anything produced by ANY
algorithm.  That would appear to show that AI has at least reached the stage
where it can reasonably model an assistant professor :-).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Idea for FAQ file
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:02:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.013727.4655@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct1.145605.3203@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct1.072316.18641@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes in part:
|> >|>
|> >|> Can people think of famous examples, in the past, when
|> >|>
|> >|>
|> >|> (a) The skeptic view was proved absolutely right,
|> >|>
|> >|>     (eg. Turin Shroud, Piltdown Man etc etc)
|> >I can't think of ANY thing where there was exactly ONE "the skeptical view".
|> 
|> ALL skeptics were right that the shroud was a fake.
My point is that some say it was made one way, others say it was
made another.  I've heard many hypotheses as to how the shroud
was made.  They can't ALL be correct.  Some of the hypotheses
proposed by skeptics are just as incorrect as the "shroud of
jesus" hypothesis.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:04:38 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1a0jrsINNqp7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark) writes:


>   Can we be sure that the small variations in the gravitational pull
>exerted on our bodies during our gestation will have no effect
>on our future physical and mental makeup?


Better stop those pregnant women turning around to face bad planets.
Lots of pillows to stop them turning over in bed.
Check the directions they have to walk from the TV to the kettle.
etc.
frightening


              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: where to find Sai Baba info
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:42:57 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

I meant, of course, SOC.religion.eastern
               not talk...........


              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:04:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: blaze.1992Oct6.180401.27616
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <BvpEsG.8CI@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>What if the supposedly incomplete world view leads the skeptic to
>punch holes in an otherwise watertight case? Now this may not happen
>in the majority of cases, but such prejudiced acceptance of an incomplete
>world view, could lead to such an instance. Accepting the validity of my
>previous statements, can anybody give me a reason why this could never
>happen?

There's a difference between not knowing everything, and not knowing anything.
If someone claims that they can change lead into gold, and I know no physics,
I might say "it's impossible."  In fact, it's not impossible; it just requires
a nuclear reaction.

But why did I say it's impossible to turn lead into gold in the first place,
if I knew nothing about it?  I said it was "impossible" because, for the most
part, everyone who's tried it in the past has failed.  And when this person
tries it now in front of me, lo and behold their gold-making machine won't
work.

It's true that nuclear physics allows it, and that if I don't know nuclear
physics I might think it's impossible when it's not.  But I don't need to know
any nuclear physics to be able to look at the evidence and say "that machine
isn't working".
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)