HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 1 Oct 1992 12:42 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep30.162515.11505@lsil.com>, gascan@dcst16.dc writes...
>In article 28SEP199212340962@csa1.lbl.gov, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep25.142701.6786@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes...
>> 
>> It is no accident that human body temperature is close to 100 on the Farenheit
>> scale.  Mr. Farenheit designed his scale so that it would be exactly 100.
>> But for reasons that I do not remember, he was a little off.
> 
>BZZZZZZZ!!!!  Thank you for playing!
>If you theory is correct, what did Mr. Farenheit use for the '0' end of his scale?
>No, Mr. Farenheit kept track of the maximum and minimum readings on his thermometer
>for some period of time (a few years, I think) and then labeled them 0 and 100.
>Later, of course, he found readings outside this range.

If you're going to Buzz me, would you at least give a reference?  I told it like
I remember it.  You may be right, but as it stands, how is anyone to tell
the difference?

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: dr3u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Read)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: J. Witnesses
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:50:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.8enrIPi00WBKI3VrNt
	<1alis8INNg1n@gap.caltech.edu>
Organization: Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

==Surely you don't mean that its impossible to act selflessly (or is this a 
==synthetic a-priori judgement), but that it is impossible to PROVE that you 
==are acting selflessly.  Suppose you offer me a million dollars to donate
==a kidney to save someone's life.  I donate the kidney.  Now it doesn't
==necessarily  follow (as implied above) that I donated the kidney for a
==million dollars, but I would find it dificult to prove that I hadn't.
 
=Please note that the person whom you quotes said `to act "PURELY" on so-called
=altruistic motives' (my emphasis added to HIS emphasis, which apparently was
=lost on you.  The claim is that there would be SOME non-altruistic
component to
=your choice;  i.e., that the million dollars had SOME influence on your
=decision.  The fact that you state that you "would find it difficult to prove"
=that you hadn't donated the kidney for the money seems indicative of the fact
=that you would, in fact have donated it, at least in part, for the
money, since
=otherwise, there's a VERY simple way to prove otherwise:  Refuse the
money.  In
=my case, I simply wouldn't donate the kidney, since I've only got one to begin
=with.


I suggest that if you think about the issue carefully you will realize
that nothing was "lost" on me.  I think you jumped the gun here (I do it
myself all the time, but not on this occasion).  The original claim was
that IF there are rewards, then people cannot be said to act selflessly.
 But that is not necessarily true, although it might be true IN FACT. 
What is certainly true if that if there are rewards for an action, we
cannot demonstrate that people are acting selflessly because an
alternative hypothesis (they are acting for reward) is plausible.  

In retrospect, I did attribute a stronger position to the original
poster than necessary, but not in the way you say.  The original poster
stated that: 

   ==With such foreknowledge, I
   ==doubt it is possible to act "purely" on so-called altruistic
   ==motives, since you know you'll be getting a dog bone when
   ==it's all over.

The words "I doubt" give the original poster an out.

daniel
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Skeptic Novels
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:58:20 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

dr3u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Read) writes:

> All of John Sladek's very fine satires have "skeptical" elements.  Two myster
> novels, BLACK AURA and SIMPLE GREEN provide unadulterated debunking of para-
> normal phenomena.  Required reading!
> 
> daniel

        I'd also like to mention that Sladek wrote a dandy debunker's classic 
titled "The New Apocrypha," which outlines just about every one of the major 
subjects the skeptics deal with. (Sladek wrote the book in 1973, two years 
before CSICOP came about, BTW.) The book is a forgotten classic of its kind, 
and deserves to be brought back into print.

        Sladek then went on to create an astrology hoax book, "The 13th 
Sign," under the pen name of James Vogh. Sladek says in an interview that he 
knew "The New Apocrypha" wouldn't do well, so he decided to see what it was 
like to try believing in a strange claim-- the strangest he could think of 
was that there was a thirteenth signof the Zodiac, Arachne, the Spider. The 
book sold better than "Apocrypha" did, of course.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
Servo: "Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard."
Joel:  "Why is my life messed up? Page 74."
Servo: "When will this movie end? Page 155."
Crow:  "How much money can we get out of Tom Cruise? Page 85."

                                       "Mystery Science Theater 3000,"
                                       during a volcano scene in
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:33:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.192529.4385@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1a4q2lINNf10@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep21.170238.25151@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>Carrying any position to logical extremes can produce
>>>unsatisfactory results.  For example, believing that this is the
>>>one and only life might tend to make me more selfish of myself
>>>having no care or consideration for anyone else.  I might even
>>>have fun breaking every social law in the book.  
>> 
>> Ah, yes.  This illustrates the underlying moral bankruptcy of so many of the
>> religious (not that I'm claiming that John belongs to this class):  It's only
>> fear of god that keeps them acting nicely.  Hence their frequent perception of
>> atheists as inherently immoral.
>
>Yes, I've heard this argument many times from fundmentalists.  They claim that
>Only God saved them from a life of sin, that he retrieved them from a sordid
>existance as a (insert one) alcoholic, wife beater, druggie, adulterer, child
>abuser, etc.  Obviously they would never have gotten any better on their own!
>
>Sarcasm meant.
>

I certainly don't advocate fear of God as the primary reason for
acting morally.  Having said that however, let me point out that
this is their experience and they truly believe it.  Also, it is
always easy to make fun of other people's beliefs.  Do you know
for a fact that things in your example would have been better
anyways without God's help? (No sarcasm meant). 

>Sue
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Successful deprogrammi
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:12:09 GMT

>>>>> On 27 Sep 92 01:52:04 GMT, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) said:

Rick> In article <LEET.92Sep22090434@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Rick> wrote as follows:

> This institute is a veritable gold-mine for skeptics - the "deed to
> Beth Sarim" is great!  (One of the early leaders of the JWs bought a
> house to hold  - I think it was Moses and Elijah - upon their earthly
> return.  And, hey, since it wasn't in use *now*, well, he'd just live
> there *himself* until M & E showed up!  JWs paid for the house - and
> you thought Jim Bakker was a scam artist ...)

Rick> Not meaning to imply much of a comparison, but have you heard
Rick> about the place the Lubavicher Chassidim have allegedly built for
Rick> the Messiah, down in Dimona (in the Negev)?  I heard that the
Rick> place has a library and living quarters on the upper floor, and
Rick> further that the Lubavicher rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson of
Rick> Brooklyn, has been dropping broad hints that he's the legitimate
Rick> tenant.  Anybody else have anything about this?

I'd like to know where you read this, Rick - I'm trying to keep a
file, although it's not high on my list.

Menachem Schneerson is (according to some reports I read in the local
paper) coyly *not* *refusing* to be named Messiah, while not
explicitly claiming the title.  His detractors (other rabbis) have
little good to say about him.  I understand that the precipitating
factor in his proposed Messiah-hood is that he has failed to name a
successor; I confess that I don't understand what that has to do with
being the Messiah - maybe someone else can shed more light.

My pastor was in Jerusalem during the snowstorm; this rabbi was there
stirring up lots of emotion both pro and con.  The rabbi's in his 80's.

I'd be interested to hear why the Messiah needs a house.  Or, is this
more of a palace ...?
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here
Integrated Measurement Systems |  is Christ, or there; believe it not.  For
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  there shall arise false Christs, and false
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  prophets, and shall show great signs and
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  wonders, ..." - Matthew 24:23-24b      THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Dream analysis therapy
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<3OCT199211324740@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:35:57 GMT

In article <3OCT199211324740@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.
arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

   >The philosopher of science Adolph Gruenbaum has published a number of
   >works critical of Freudian psychoanalysis.

  Lots of people - philosophers, psychologists, others - have published
criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis. Yet this criticism doesn't amount to
"debunking". I think there is a clear distinction between e.g. debunking
von Daniken and criticizing Freud. It is not to be expected that a
"skeptical" or "scientific" attitude should enable us to disprove or on
rational grounds reject everything that has been disapproved of by
adherents of the methods and theories of natural science.
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crucified for Prophecy's Sake? (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 2 Oct 92 07:53:05 EST

In article <1992Oct1.163540.25491@spectra.com>, johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson) writes:
[...]
> 
> The prophecies are much clearer than anything Nostrodomus [sic] ever
> did, but if they were too clear there would be the danger of a staged
> incident.  A little ambiguity helps people realize afterward that
> prophecy was fulfilled.
In a word, WHAT????????   Problem: ambiguity lets everyone interpret things
exactly their own way to satisfy their own political concerns.  The ambiguity
does not help. It only makes things more confused.

GXKambic
sd

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17068 talk.religion.misc:17304
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 28 Sep 1992 13:08 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

>In article <717391059.AA00000@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>
>Sorry, I don't quite follow. A few dealers in foreign coins amount to a power
>base? And of the aristocracy, no less? Most aristocracies' power bases rest in
>land holdings and political influence. Assuming that the alleged incident
>happened, it was probably as significant as a crowd of university students
>pelting someone with eggs.

I think that "moneychanger" is a slight mistranslation.  In those days
there was no uniform currency.  Money had to be weighed or otherwise
validated at the point of purchase.  There was a large group of people,
your "moneychanger" who provided this function, in the marketplaces and
elsewhere, for a fee.  In a Middle Eastern market, after negotiating a 
sale, you and the merchant would search for, or call for, a wandering
"moneychanger" who could come over to oversee the exchange of monies.
This had nothing to do with foreign exchange, with which a modern moneychanger 
is involved.

And since these people handled lots of cash, and were responsible for 
guaranteeing that the money you were accepting was actually gold, and not
underweighed, they were forced to become tightly organized - scales had
to be calibrated, quality assured - and they became a powerful organization.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Idea for FAQ file
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:45:43 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Oct1.145605.3203@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>|> 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".
>:-)

There's also another problem: leaving out the qualifiers.  "There is no known
principle that would allow so-and-so", mentioned by detractors after the
fact without the first clause.  Or "so-and-so theory as you state it cannot
happen", mentioned by detractors when the theory proves right--_after_ it's
fiddled with to come up with something that works.  (Continental drift,
for instance, had both of these problems....)
--
"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)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:11:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.041948.15142@bilver.uucp> dickb@bilver.uucp (Dick Biow) writes:
>I don't believe the money-changer incident happened. Nobody was allowed to carry a weapon, like the whips John has Jesus take with him, except for the guards.
>Jesus never would have been allowed to approach the money-tables, any more than
>a robber would.
>

Surely, the place of business where one purchases items must have had facilities
for changing money.  It probably was very similar to your typical bazaar or
marketplace.  As for the whip, a piece of rope is very easy to come by and
doesn't need any special screening as a weapon.  For all we know, he could have
grabbed such an artifact that was lying around.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: bsmith@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Brian Smith)
Subject: Need info on Greek 'miracles'
Organization: Monash University, Caulfield Campus
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:56:04 GMT

A friend of mine has been telling me about some well-documented events/phenomen
that I would like to hear more about.  Please reply if you've heard of them
or any studies of them.

1) Snakes in Greece in a certain town are do something really wierd.  On the 
same day of the year (15th August ? It's a religiously significant day) around
 50 snakes come down from the surrounding hills.  They move through the town
and enter the church there.  They head for an icon of the Virgin Mary and upon
touching it they stop moving.  They stay there until the end of the Liturgy
that continues throughout.  At the end of it they drop back to the floor and
leave the church.  During their journey towards the church the snakes are
very docile and can be handled by anyone.  After the service they become hostile
again.  My friend has seen video footage of this event and is getting it for
me too.

2) The Hand of Mary Magdalene.  There is a hand in a monastery on Mt. Athos that
has been found to constantly be at body temperature, even though it's not 
attached to a body.  It has been checked by scientists (who ? I don't know)
and they coudldn't explain it.  They verified the temperature thing, though.

3)A greek orthodox monastery that is covered by cloud on a certain holy day
every year, even though a nearby Catholic monastery is not.

4)In Jerusalem on the Saturday of the resurrection in the church of the
Holy Sepulchre, thousands of people every year see this phenomenon.  The priest
enters a structure said to be Christ's tomb and a while later, flashes of light
emerge from the structure and move around on it's 'own' accord.  It's been 
reputed to work miracles, ie Hit a deaf man in the ear and cured him.  When it
first emerges it doesn't burn, but it will light candles.  My friend said it
has been seen by thousands of people, so if you've seen it, tell us about it.

These stories sound like events that can be documented (and should be).  I 
expect someone must have written about them somewhere; the claims made are
for physical events ie. THe hand's temperature can be checked, the snakes can
be watched/tagged/followed/dissected and the blue lights can be examined by
electrical physicists.  Please reply or post if you have any information on
these phenomena.
Thanks for your time
-- 
Brian Smith                                  |"Feed me !" - Cat
bsmith@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au                |"Cat! Rimmer's dad just died..."
"I deserve everything I get but              |"I'd prefer chicken...." -Cat    
 I haven't got everything I deserve."        | Red Dwarf
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:38:27 GMT

In article <vn#pa5=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.145922.22060@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>
>>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. 

Exactly, there is nothing is this belief, in and of itself, that
has any relevance to the cause, nature or purpose of the universe.
This is not to say that you couldn't have a set of religious
beliefs that would contain this belief.  In that case, it would
not be superstition. 

>Rich
>
>payner@netcom.com


-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:21:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.041450.5026@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.011018.27240@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>In article <1a4qjnINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.164716.17410@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>=[...]
>>>=There are plenty of people who are in the Peace Corps or army, have hobbies
>>>=or families and still have their spiritual needs met by religion.  I think
>>>=you are confusing social needs with spiritual needs.  
>>>
>>>Perhaps because we haven't seen a definition of "spiritual needs"?  He *DID*
>>>ask you for a definition.  Is this another of those things like a "soul" that
>>>can't be defined, but it exists because you want it to exist?
>>
>>I didn't perceive his question as being any more than rhetorical.
>
>Well, while I still have Webster's boatanchor edition out (carrying it over
>to the console is no light matter :-) 
>    rhetorical question _n_ : a question not intended to elicit an answer
>	but asked for rhetorical effect often with an assumption that only
>	one answer is possible (as in "Who does not love his country?").
>
>Sooo... if the answer to the question is so obvious and clear-cut that 
>you sincerely did not believe that he was hoping for an answer, perhaps 
>it is sufficiently obvious and clear-cut that you can state it here.
>    If you're going to write things like "I think you are confusing social 
>needs with spiritual needs" it's only fair that you make some effort
>towards characterizing your perception of the distinction. 
>
>-- 
>ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)


No, he asked the question and then went ahead and defined it
himself.  I was only pointing out that his definition was
confusing.  If he or anyone else really is interested in a
definition of "spiritual needs" vs. "social needs" I will be happy
to continue the discussion (probably Email is more appropriate but
I won't object to it here).

-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic