HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: "Worlds In Collision" plagerized
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:58:24 PDT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Public access BBS)

Tag: Robert Sheaffer
 
RS> "Velikovsky made a few *qualitative* statements (along the
RS> lines of 'this is hot' or 'that is cold') that turned out
RS> to be correct guesses, along with dozens of other 'predictions'
RS> that turned out to be flat wrong. As a 'science,' Velikovskinism
RS> has *not* been vindicated in any way."
 
Not to mention he basically plagerized his "Worlds in Collision"
text from Dr. William Whiston, Lucasian at Cambridge in 1710 CE.
Dr. Whiston "calculated" that Earth was once a commet that was
trapped by the sun. Then one day god sent a smaller commet to
punish humanity, by-passing Earth and causing "forty days and
forty nights" of "violent rainstorms," with the commet itself
causing contenent-covering tidal waves. Velikovsky must have
accidently stumbled into a library one day and found this book.
 
Dr. Whiston, in "A New Theory of the Earth," gives the date of
this event as the 28Th. of November, 2349 BCE, =OR= 2Nd. December,
2926 BCE (he could not make up his mind which).
 
> Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

--  

David Rice
Internet: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: The Nazca "Airfields"?
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:18:36 GMT
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)

NO NO NO
They are not landing fields, but navigational aids!  If you don't
belive me, read _Cat a Lyst_ by Alan Dean Foster.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The study of theology, as it stands in the
Field Robotics Center,          | Christian churches, is the study of
Carnegie Mellon University      | nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | on no principles; it proceeds by no
(412) 268-3856                  | authority; it has no data; it can
                                | demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no
The opinions expressed are mine | conclusion.  Thomas Paine
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: New "Sightings" Series On Fox!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:30:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.152917.1654@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
> 
>    The "Sightings" specials of Fox, which have done reports on UFOs and
> ghosts, will now become a series! The first airs this week (the 17th?) on
> UFOs, and they have future episodes on Montsers and other mysteries coming
> up too. Check it out.

   I think its awfully considerate of paranormal phenomena to give up their
shyness and work within a network's time frame.  Some people have trouble
staying with that kind of grind.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Why Psychics don't win
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:31:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.215551.21876@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> 
  kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:

>I agree with this assessment in general.
>
>Specifically, I feel that in the case of psi, many skeptics assume that
>studies like PEAR are invalid before they have been debunked, and are not
>basing their judgements on a true assessment of the evidence.

Okay, sure.  I admit that I have not actually seen the PEAR studies or
know much about them.  I do feel that the skeptics have more or less the
right idea in this situation though.  Every time before, when someone has
popped up and said, here is convincing evidence for PSI, *every single time*,
it has proven to be either a deliberate or unconscious fraud.  While I
admit that PEAR could well be different (it seems to have been approached
in a different way than most previous tests) forgive me if I don't seem
enthusiastic.  The best I can offer is that, while I don't believe it
is valid, I am prepared to be convinced otherwise.

C Frog
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: I don't know.
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:23:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.215657.6121@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
> ...  The evidence presented by PEAR labs in Princeton isn't
>so bad.  ...

  I've been reading some publications of the PEAR work.  I'm finding
it rather amazing.  The experiments seem to have been designed and run 
very carefully, and show "anomalies" which seem to be "conciousness
related".  Also the effects are really very small, which means that
they are *not* dramatic and can only be shown when looking at large
numbers of results.  (Also it means that some relatively small over-
looked factor could be an alternative explanation.)

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Free Will QM etc.
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:20:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.22553
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Apr6.213643.11384@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes...

>I don't want to start the free-will avalanche again, but this
>argument is not logical.  A system can show behaviour its
>components don't show.  A computer can do things a flip-flop
>couldn't dream of.
> 

The flip-flop could never dream of it, but neither could the computer (yet)!

The question is not whether having more components allows more sophisticated
algorithms to be run, but rather whether there is any entirely new such as
consciousness or free-will can emerge from complexity,  Clearly our existence 
argues that consciousness emerges from compexity.  Free will is another story.


-Scott
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Geller
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:56:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.002938.2140@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>I remember reading years ago that Randi claimed to be able to reproduce all
>of Geller's tricks.
>
>The article said that the spoon bending can be done with the aid of a certain
>chemical, which you rub on to the spoon.
>
>The article never said what the chemical actually was and whether it is
>harmful or not to the skin. (Does Geller walk around with blisters on his
>fingers?:-)).
>

I've never heard of the trick done using chemicals.  It's easily done
with sleight of hand and misdirection.  A spoon is easly bent with
one hand, especially if the mark isn't looking at the right place at
the right time.


--
McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com     Computers are like Old Testament gods;
Me? Speak for Compaq?  Yeah, right.   lots of rules and no mercy.
                                                             Joseph Campbell
From: davidsen@yeti.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: studying psi in the US
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:05:30 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Apr7.151825.7313@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) writes:

|  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.

  God point here. There are still some schools which allow you to
propose a degree, state the intent and courses, and allow you to do the
degree if it seems to represent a fair amount of work. I thingk Brown
used to do that, but don't quote me.

  If you were going to do a real study, the tools needed are found in
statistics (analysis), psychology (how the mind perceives stuff),
and pre-med (what actually goes on in the physical brain). I would also
like to see some physics (for base theory) and advertising psych as well
(to help identify sybtle hype).
-- 
	- bill davidsen (davidsen@crd.ge.com)
	GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
By analysis of usenet source, the hardest part of C to use is the comment
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Sensible interpretation of the unknown (was: I don't know).
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:09:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.114140.14037@Princeton.EDU>,
rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) writes:

                                   [deletions]

> In article <1992Apr9.092904@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
>>(iv) A council that maintains and enforces standards of quality and honesty.
> 
> Aside from the questionable implication that such a council exists for
> any other research domain,

   The NAS does some of this as do the various grant review boards like the NIH
group that's been shredding Gallo.  Multiple such councils exist for scientific
research.  My own professional associations, the AMS and AMA alert the
membership when bogus results slip through the peer review process.  There was
a subtle-yet-false proof of Fermats Last Conjecture while I was in Grad. school
that serves as an example of this.  In addition the work with accreditation
agencies to maintain standards in teaching.

> it is a fact that parapsychologists have
> indeed a formal declaration of principles that are relevant.

   And the Soviet Union had a constitution that reads like ours.  I remain 
unimpressed.

> The
> Parapsychological Association, which is the main research organization
> and is the publisher of the Journal of Parapsychology, has a well
> developed set of guidelines and standards for quality of research.
> 
> They have to rely on the mafia for enforcement, though. :-)

   Well yes, so they get the chachet of respectability without paying the
price.  My limited contact with this journal you mention has shown it to
be irrationally partisan and inaccurate.  They called CSICOP a group "many
of whom have religious beliefs that cause them to dismiss the paranormal"
for example (quote from memory, may be inaccurate at the word level).

> One example of their policies that other sciences would do well to consider 
> is the encouragement for publication of null, negative, "failed" research.

   If you could find space for it yeah, but at present the positive results
swallow the bandwidth.  Such a journal for negative results _in medicine_
started a few months back, in e-mail/downloadable document form.  Announced
in _Science_ among other places.

> Another, that is presently pre-formal I think, is to encourage
> publication of certain parameters or descriptors, such as effect sizes,
> that help with interpretations but are not yet typical in any science
> reporting standards.

   No disagreement here.

>  
> Most of the rest deleted.
> 
> >Stay tuned, keep an open mind? yes!  Give psi one shred of creedence?  Not 
> >yet (maybe this summer).  I invite you to hold your breath.
> 
> Not.

   I was speaking to Dave Krauss.  One post without rapier wit is the most I can
manage in a row.

> 
> Roger N

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8064 talk.religion.misc:6890
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Historical Jesus I:  Introduction
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:08:52 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
Keywords: historical jesus, creation/evolution debate
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <mstjkta@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes...

>The second is to point out to Evolutionists an important line of argument
>that perhaps is underestimated.  Creationists are always on the offensive
>in arguing against the validity of evolution.  Evolutionists should also
>carry the battle into the enemy's camp by attacking the literal interpretation
>of the Bible by Creationists, citing not only the inerrencies of and historical
>questions about the OT, but also that of the New Testament, which the Xtians
>claim as their very own.  And they can do it by utilizing modern biblical
>textual/form/source/critical/redaction/archaeological research.

NO!  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  Evolutionists  (read: rational, committed to scientific
fact over religious dogma, etc...)  should never debate the credibility of 
the Bible, in any interpretation.  This is (a) completely beside the point in 
arguing for the evidence in favor of the fact of evolution and the importance
of various mechanisms for it, and (b) playing right into the hands of those
people who want you to acknowledge that the Bible might potentially contain the 
disproof of evolution.  

-Scott


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Sensible interpretation of the unknown (was: I don't know).
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:06:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.060139.13238@Princeton.EDU>,
rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) writes:
> In article <1992Apr11.011318.6261@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
writes:
> >In article <1992Apr9.092904@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
> >
> >>The extensive negative results and weak positive results for psi
> >>indicate the current sensible assumption about psi is that it doesn't
exist.
> >
> >Here I agree with you.
> 
> What extensive negative results are you folks talking about?

   3,000 years of recorded history with millions of empirical attempts
to develop psionic technology?  Compare this to say, empirical developments
in artillery, lever technology, or mass psychology.  Gotta have it.

>  The context
> "weak positive results" suggests reference to experimental work, but I
> wonder if you can point to research that justifies your statement.  In
> particular, I know that many experiments addressing "psi" produce null or 
> even negative results,

   What fraction of the time?

> but this is true in any research domain that is
> not trivial, and in the case of psi research, quantitative reviews in
> several sub-categories show consistent replication of positive findings
> that outweigh the null/negatives even after consideration of the
> influence of quality variations, the "filedrawer", and non-homogeneity.

   My!  What a lot of 49 cent words.  I'll read you stuff _this summer_.  Until
then I stick by my preliminary assesment, that if psi were a real physical
phenomenon instead of a psychological or experimental artifact, you wouldn't
need meta-analysis et. al. to detect the effects.  

 
> Or were you merely agreeing genially on an opinion that has no
> substantial foundation?

   Your calm seems to be slipping.  Psi has the same sort of burden to lift
that alchemistry did.  And look what hgappened when people _did_ finally 
produce gold out of "base metals".  Turned out to be nothing like what the 
original theory wanted or proposed.

> Roger N

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

PS: congratulations.  You made the skeptical enquirer this month!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: tait@cs.columbia.edu (Carl Tait)
Subject: Re: Album by bizzare British spiritualist
Followup-To: rec.music.classical
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 08:32:11 GMT

Hello again, r.m.c....

Between CS research, piano practice and recitals, and a girlfriend
who occupies most of my spare time, I regretfully haven't been reading
this group for awhile.  But I peeked in today, and found a thread
that's too much fun to pass up.

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!

As others have said, her name is Rosemary Brown.  To the best of my
knowledge, she made only one album.  It was originally issued as
Philips 6500 049 in Spring 1970, cleverly titled "Rosemary Brown's
Music, Inspired by Liszt, Chopin, Beethoven [et al.]."  Peter Katin
was hired to play the more difficult works; Brown played only half
of the record herself.

Incredibly, Philips devoted almost all of their Spring 1970 "Music Herald"
(27 out of 34 pages) to Mrs. Brown and her wacky album.  Steven Bishop
(pre-Kovacevich) was relegated to a brief article at the end of the
magazine.  Brown's LP was billed as her "first record" - evidently the
first in an anticipated series of discs that would have included
"a choral symphony which she is receiving from Beethoven."

Apparently the record didn't sell as well as Philips had hoped.
A few years later, they reissued the LP in a tawdry package
entitled "A Musical Seance featuring Rosemary Brown" (PHS 900-256).
The cover featured a floating severed hand clutching a quill pen,
feverishly scrawling music in luminescent ink.

It's easy to understand the lukewarm response to these recordings.
Even those inclined to believe in the supernatural couldn't get
around one embarrassing problem: the music just wasn't very good.
Peter Katin's playing is fine, and even Brown's own performances
are acceptable, but if Chopin actually wrote the plodding drivel
laughably called "Ballade," his compositional skills must have
deteriorated significantly after his death.  (Not too surprising, really.)

Mrs. Brown's admirers often gave the following "proof" of her authenticity:
"Gee, she doesn't play the piano very well herself, so she couldn't
have written the more difficult pieces."  Hmm, since Ravel was a rotten
pianist, I guess he didn't really write "Gaspard de la nuit."  Must
have been dictated to him posthumously by Liszt.

Carl Tait
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Monday, 6 Apr 1992 13:44:32 CET
From: Rene Zandbergen <RZANDBER@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why psychics don't win the lottery

This is why:
Say I'm a psychic (which I'm not). I am at one of these places where
they sell lottery tickets. I ask for one and am presented with a number
which, as I immediately realise, will not yield a prize.
So I don't buy the ticket. (And I save some money which a non-psychic
would have lost).

Disclaimer: I do not believe there are people who know in advance
what the number will be, more often than from pure chance.

Rene Zandbergen (RZANDBER @ ESOC.BITNET)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Acupuncture (wasRe: Consensus...)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:56:11 GMT

wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
: 
: Second, horses can be made really quiet by an instrument that consists
: of a noose that is twisted around their nose.  Possibly analogous to
: acupuncture anesthesia. Increase of endorphines has been observed 
: under those circumstances. 
: 

It's called a "twitch" and is applied to the horses lip.

(not bad for a city boy, eh?)

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I'm rated PG-34!!
Rosemount Inc.                                |
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson)
Subject: Re: Why Psychics don't win
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:04:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.173107.7981@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.215551.21876@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> 
>  kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>
>>I agree with this assessment in general.
>>
>>Specifically, I feel that in the case of psi, many skeptics assume that
>>studies like PEAR are invalid before they have been debunked, and are not
>>basing their judgements on a true assessment of the evidence.
>
>Okay, sure.  I admit that I have not actually seen the PEAR studies or
>know much about them.  I do feel that the skeptics have more or less the
>right idea in this situation though.  Every time before, when someone has
>popped up and said, here is convincing evidence for PSI, *every single time*,
>it has proven to be either a deliberate or unconscious fraud.  While I

Since I am stuck waiting for a huge graphic to print, I will take a
little time to protest this statement.  There are, in *research* studies
of psi only a few cases, like two I am aware of, possibly several
I don't know about, where the evidence has "proven to be [tainted by]
either deliberate of unconscious fraud."  
I won't dispute that skeptics have more or less the right idea, and
believe that psi is hard to believe since it exhibits characteristics that
don't fit well into standard scientific models, but skeptics need to be
scientific in their skepticism.  Many are not, and vigorously defend
what is "natural", often to the exclusion of examination of evidence.  

Roger N

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Why Psychics don't win
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:55:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.053702.15599@acsu.buffalo.edu> v070qg5d@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric M Chmiel) writes:
>>(Dave Kraus) writes...
 
}}Also, don't ignore the fact that "I don't know" is the correct answer to
}}many questions that individuals use subjective feelings to answer.
 
}   Science is not just a body of accumulated logic, but a method of finding
}things out based on EVIDENCE.  While it may be true that "I don't know" is
}the correct answer to some questions individuals use subjective feelings to
}answer, in the case of psi and the like, skeptics don't answer based on
}subjective feelings. They answer based on EVIDENCE. The correct answer in this
}case, then, is "I don't know 100% for sure, but BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE there
}doesn't appear to be anything particularly convincing in favor of the existence
}of psi and the like."

I agree with this assessment in general.

Specifically, I feel that in the case of psi, many skeptics assume that
studies like PEAR are invalid before they have been debunked, and are not
basing their judgements on a true assessment of the evidence.