HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Consensus (was: Re: Matriarchial "tribes")
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:23:22 EST

In article <1992Apr8.140612.2466@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.100853.7739@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, 
> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes...
>>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>, 
>>[...]
>>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).
> I have no disagreement with this.  However, you may find that if you believe
> that "acting like a scientist" _makes_ you a scientist, you may occasionally
> find yourself bumping into that breed of _real_ scientist who profess a
> true dislike for "mere amateurs".  Some sciences, such as Astronomy, seem
> to have a good working relationship with "their" amateurs, others apparently
> _don't_ (medicine, for example.)
"Acting like a scientist."  Argh.  So much for clarity.  I really meant that
acting like a scientist means following the scientific method rigourously.  
> 
>>> 
>>[...]
>>However, are "consensus" comparisons an "acceptable" form of Occam's razor
>>given the amount of time we have to deal with these problems?
> Not by my (probably flawed) idea of what Occam's razor is.  I don't see
> the resemblance between, say,
> 
> 1. "I disagree with X because all the experts says it's malarkey."
>  and 
> 2. "X overly complicates its mechanisms."
> 
> Now, you have implied that the prime motivation for a "consensus comparison"
> is limitted time/effort.  My reply is basically, "Too bad.  Some ideas just
> may actually take a _lot_ of effort to truely do a correct job of skepticism."
Yep.
> 
> For "shortcuts" use propaganda, but don't call it by a mistaken name.
> That's just _more_ propaganda.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer
From: wgh@ubbpc.tredydev.Unisys.COM (Bill Hutchison)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorum
Summary: five-way dilemma?
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:51:02 GMT
Organization: Unisys UNIX Portation Center, Blue Bell, PA

In article <1992Apr8.023534.25868@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, 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 [ ... ]
> >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 [ ... ] he made a mistake
>                    (d) he was lying
or                   (e) he really found a proof, which was erroneous,
                         but the theorem is true regardless.
                                                            xor Inews fodder
                                                            xor Inews fodder
                                                            xor Inews fodder
                                                            xor Inews fodder
                                                            xor Inews fodder
                                                            xor Inews fodder
-- 
Bill Hutchison, DP Consultant	wgh@ubbpc.TredyDev.Unisys.COM (work)
Unisys UNIX Portation Center	uunet!eidolon!wgh (home)
P.O. Box 500, M.S. B121         "At the moment I feel more like arguing than
Blue Bell, PA 19424		being good" Raymond Smullyan _The Tao is Silent_
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: My last statement on t
Date: 6 Apr 92 01:22:53 GMT

In article <JaHiiB1w164w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>, bhendrix@ersys.edmonton
.ab.ca (Brian Hendrix) writes as follows:
 
> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> 
>>    Beyond that, the scurrilous way the so-called "Holocaust
>>    Revisionists" operate makes it pretty clear they've no real
>>    argument. Read "alt.conspiracy" for a while. Somebody from the
>>    "Banished CPU" will post a "Revisionist" tract that a dozen
>> others    will pick apart with creidble refutation. The Revisionist
>> may    "quibble" a bit, but will offer no substantive defense, then
>>    just re-post the *same* article a few weeks later, making no
>>    effort to fix anything that has been refuted.
> 
> I will say it again, Mr Sheaffer, since you didn't seem to clue in the
> first time:
> 
>    alt.conspiracy DOES NOT REPRESENT THE WORLD AT LARGE.
> 
> Once more, just to be very clear:  What one, or two, or a half dozen
> for that matter, people say in alt.conspiracy does not represent ALL
> of the people who put forth an argument.
> 
> I can't stand the HR's myself but I have even less tolerance for your
> illogical, unreasoned, and ridiculous statements.
> 
> Sheesh.  When you try and counter-argue, use facts -- DON'T point a
> finger at some fool in alt.conspiracy.
 
This raises the intriguing question of who exactly _might_ qualify as a
responsible, thoughtful spokesman for Holocaust revisionism, if the
kindly folks in alt.conspiracy are considered to not make the grade.
 
The floor is hereby opened for nominations.  (_This_ I can't wait to 
see.)
 
Best Regards,               "In the struggle between you and the world,
Rick Moen                    back the world."
Vice-Chair, Bay Area Skeptics         -- Frank Zappa

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Francisco - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: Humanoids On Mars (Again)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:10:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.210454.6156@aeras.uucp> jasonh@aeras.UUCP (Jason Harris) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.151638.28297@watserv1.waterloo.edu> rlbell@hertz.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell) writes:
>
>>The general form that an alien must have is not at all difficult to establish
>>by extrapolation of terrestrial forms.  The only way to get enough nuerons
>>together to evolve into a brain is to concentrate sensor organs in one place;
>>therefore, all alien intelligences will have a head. 
>
>Why do you need the bulk of the neurons to be centrally located? Why not 
>distribute the intelligence mechanism throughout the body. So long as this
>is sufficiently redundant so as not to cause vulnerability to attack there
>should be no problem with this. It may even be advantageous in some 
>environments.
>
>Come On! Use your imagination! This "well they're probably just like us"
>stuff is reminiscent of earth centered universes. I expect that the 
>universe has plenty of suprises in store for us.
>

I wrote that an alien intelligence would have a head, and be capable of tool
use.  This does not imply a humanoid form.  There are several non humanoid
aliens in science fiction that have heads and "hands" : the puppeteers and 
outsiders from Nivens "Known Space" stories; the 'snouts' from "Footfall", and
the octopus-like gerrin from David Drake's "Far Stars War".  The puppeteer's
head is located at the front of its body and, from it, extend two eye/mouth
stalks.

Every thing on this earth more intelligent than a starfish (the most advanced
living thing with a distributed nervous system) has a head. 
 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Reports on Amelia Earhart
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 13:57:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Recently, a friend asked me about the reports of finding Amelia Earhart's
remains on an island in the Pacific.

I remember hearing something about this, but don't know the details.  Does
anyone have any more info (such as what island, etc.)?

Thanks.

-- 

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)
From: jdale@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Dale)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Consensus (was: Re: Matriarchial "tribes")
Summary: Scientist vs Skeptic
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:43:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32185
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


Pick this definition over.

  A skeptic is someone who acts like a scientist, 
    in terms of evaluating hypotheses according to the scientific method
    of experimentation, Occam's Razor, and testing,
  while a scientist is a skeptic who also is aware of a large body of
    knowledge in one particular field and uses it (along with observations)
    to formulate the hypotheses to be tested.

  A scientist who is not a skeptic would be one who knows lots about a field
but who does not test hypotheses appropriately.  There is a term for such
a person -- a "quack".

  Outside of his/her field, a scientist may be merely a skeptic.  Or, a
scientist may be "unskeptical" of things in some fields outside of his/her
own, such as [fill in the most ridiculous theory you can think of; references
to UFOs omitted to avoid offending anyone].  

  Sometimes scientists are called upon to judge things outside of their field
as if they were in their field.  Virtually any type of scientist from 
"traditional" fields (like physics, biology, astronomy, etc) is not 
particularly suited to judge claims like ESP, although they could act like
a skeptic.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Kirilian Photography
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 11 Apr 1992 17:52 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

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.

If you want to find out about Kirlian photography, obtain for yourself
(by ordering copies or by consulting your library) the following two
articles:

   Arleen J. Watkins and William S. Bickel, "A Study of the Kirlian
      Effect," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 10, no. 3 (Spring 1986),
      pp. 244-257.
   ---, "The Kirlian Technique: Controlling the Wild Cards,"
      _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 13, no. 2 (Winter 1989), pp. 172-184.

You *may* be able to get copies from William S. Bickel, who is in the
Department of Physics at the University of Arizona (see my signature
for the address).  You can obtain back issues of the _Skeptical
Inquirer_ for $6.25 each from The Skeptical Inquirer, Box 703,
Buffalo, NY 14226-0703 (1-800-634-1610).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8088 rec.music.classical:5838
From: umrutko0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Album by bizzare British spiritualist
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:19:26 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <kujtekINN50j@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:

>That's Rosemary Brown.

>I thought part of her claim to veracity was that she was a rather bad
>pianist, and that therefore the pieces, some of which are rather hard,
>had to be real. 

>I've never seen the recording, but my local music library
>had the book of piano pieces that she released. Most pieces were rather bland,
>but 'Jezus walking on the waves of lake ... ' by Liszt was fun,
>and the piece by Liszt that has 5/4 in the one hand and 6/4 in the other
>was quite challenging to play, although not too rewarding. The Beethoven
>and Chopin pieces in that book are worthless.

Well, not quite worthless.  They ARE interesting curiosities.  I have a
copy of the album, and it's definitely a collectors' item.  She is not
a very good pianist, it's true, and the preamble to the record is
almost embarrassing.  I haven't listened to the album for many years.

In retrospect, her work is merely a form of automatic writing in a
different kind of =medium= (sorry, couldn't resist that).

-- 
Chris Rutkowski - umrutko0@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
From: loren@lintilla.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "Non-Patriarchal" Tribes: Leacock's Claims
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:56:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: lll-wink.121910

In article <1992Apr5.171722.3576@iscsvax.uni.edu>, crew@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

: Finally, my two cents worth on Shaeffer's request for evidence of
: non-patriarchal societies.  I'm somewhat out of my area of expertise here, but
: it seems like there is substantial evidence that the Etruscans were a
: relatively gender-equal society.  Their surviving artwork depicts men and women
: as social equals, and I read an article by some archeologists (sorry, I can't
: supply the reference just now) that suggests the Greeks and Romans really hated
: the Etruscans because they didn't keep women in their "proper place." 
: While most anthropologists agree that all societies that have been reliably
: studied are patriarchal, the degree of male dominance shows enormous
: variability.  E.g., among the Ashanti, property is inherited matrilineally,
: giving women, particularly grandmothers, an extraordinary amount of power
: compared to their "modern" counterparts.  This is being eroded as the govt. of
: Ghana replaces traditional communal property law with modern, individualized
: norms of ownership.  I give this example because it shows that modernization
: does not *always* lead to increased rights for women.

	That is *exactly* the case that Leacock had been trying to
make; her examples are the Montagnais-Naskapi of Labrador and the
Iroquois of the New York State area.

	Marija Gimbutas mentions the Etruscans briefly in her
_Civilization of the Goddess_ as an example of a surviving society of
her "Old European" type where male domination (if any) was relatively
weak compared to the classical Greeks and Romans. She mentions that
some Greek authors thought it shocking that women could have the
independence they had had, that they could indulge in athletics just
like men (both sexes in the nude together!), that they sometimes
dressed similarly to men, that they could raise children without
giving too much thought about who the father was, and stuff like that.

/Loren
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why psychics don't win the lottery
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:48:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: zia.1992Apr7.064845.11428
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM

In article <92097.134432RZANDBER@ESOC.BITNET> RZANDBER@ESOC.BITNET (Rene Zandbergen) writes:
>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).
>
I have never played a lottery so I can't be sure.  I have always
thought that when you bought a ticket, you bought a chance to
pick your favorite number.  There are a number of "systems" and
"calculators" sold to help people "win" when playing the usual games
sold at the local "7/11" (do they sell tickets in the states that
have lotteries?").  Note that I am not talking about the scratch
and win games.

The systems that I refer to above seem to be based on the concept
of expected value.  Again this is just a guess based on what I
have seen advertised.  The concept of the lottery systems/calulators
is that while all of the winning numbers are random (if they are not...)
a large number of people tend to choose the same number.  So if
they win, they have to split.  So if you use their system to choose
a random number, and you win, then you most likely you won't have to
split.  I.E. your expected value is greater.  Professional poker
players live on this concept but their odds are much greater playing
poker against the average player.  It can be profitable betting on
making an inside straight, if the size of the pot is great, and the
cost of getting the next card is low.  Expected value!  Of course
in playing poker you have additional advantages of knowing what
cards have already been seen (you mean you have not been PAYING
attention) and knowing the pyschology of the other players.  But
the concept of expected value still applies.

>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)


-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:7961 alt.paranormal:1233
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: studying psi in the US
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:55:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: wdl.1992Apr9.215526.3310
Distribution: usa
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <1992Apr9.200530.4895@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>  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).

Add in Slight-of-hand and Stage Magic.

--
mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Consensus: Too Sluggish or Too Hasty?
Date: 5 Apr 92 17:22:52 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <3646@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:

>In article <1gkj2!d.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>
>>What I was REALLY trying to get at (and should have phrased better) was
>>not 'ordinary science'. What I was looking for was more like, 'a claimed
>>startling great new idea proposed, laughed at by scientists (and especially
>>by skeptics!), but later turned out to have been right.' 
>>
>
>What about the fantastic claim that biologists and geologists made that
>the earth had to have an age of many hundreds of millions of years,
>because otherwise known evolutionary and geological processes wouldn't
>have had enough time to produce the present result. 
>
>At least one scientist (Lord Kelvin) not merely laughed at it, but 
>was quite positive that this idea was wrong, as thermodynamical
>calculations showed (1) the earth's intererior would have cooled down
>much more (2) the sun could not possibly have been producing energy
>for so long.  The biologists/geologists turned out to be right; the
>physicists simply overlooked the possibility that they might not know
>all energy sources (radioactivity, nuclear fusion).


The actual history of this is a bit different.  If you go back and
look at Kelvin's claims, you'll discover that he had to make many
assumptions about the physical properties of the deep earth (thermal
coductivity, specific heat, composition and so on).  Very little was
known at the time about the properties of matter at the high
temperature and pressure inside the earth.  Moreover, he had to assume
that no potential energy was being released (for example, by
segregation of denser materials at the earth's core).  Other
physicists could and did make different estimates, based on different
assumptions, some of which were much longer than Kelvin's.

The real story here is that Kelvin was suffering from a case of "old
scientist's disease", in which a well respected scientist escapes, by
reason of his stature in the field, from the normal checks and
balances that would otherwise filter out dubious claims.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:7940 talk.origins:4166 talk.religion.misc:6445
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:33:13 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

In article <2APR199217492882@rosie.uh.edu> mece3d@rosie.uh.edu (Chris Struble) writes:

>  This depends on what you mean by God. Evolution, strictly speaking,
>is limited to that period of time for which we have fossil evidence.

	Bzzzt, sorry. There are numerous lines that support common
ancestry -- fossils are but one. The theory of evolution does not
need fossil evidence (but it is a nice addition).

>|  Christian Struble	   |  To shield people from the consequences   |
>|  Mechanical Engineering  |  of their own folly is to fill the	       | 
>|  University of Houston   |  world with fools  		       |	
>|  mece3d@rosie.uh.edu	   |    	Herbert Spencer		       |	
>------------------------------------------------------------------------	

Chris Colby	email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu
"And will our voices be heard/Or will they break like the wind"
-Spinal Tap
From: DURRETT@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Accupuncture (wasRe: Consensus...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:22:00 GMT
 <#0gj#!f.sheaffer@netcom.com> <1992Apr1.165049.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
 <3626@tuegate.tue.nl> <1556@snap>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1556@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) says:
>
>
>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.
>
>Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).           | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245

When curare was first introduced to Western Medicine(TM) it was generally
regarded as an effective anesthetic during operations, because patients
weren't complaining during the operation. It later turned out that they
couldn't move because of the curare(basically, for the uninitiated,
curare blocks nerve impulses to muscles), but that they were feeling
every cut and every stitch. Lesson? Paralysis doesn't imply lack of
feeling.

Roo-Dog Rip
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Roo-Dog Rip is:                  <>SLAC, Stanford, the DOE and the
Derrell Durrett                  <>University of Colorado neither claim
D_DURRETT@COLOPHYS.BITNET        <>responsibility nor accept liability
D_DURRETT%KAOS@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU <>for my opinions. Gee- what a surprise.