HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Psychics in Casinos
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:37:36 GMT

(Charles Haynes) writes:
>(Dave Chapman) writes:
>>It seems to me that even a small population of psychics would quickly put 
>>all of the casinoes out of business. Oops, I forgot, the 
>>psychics own the casinoes.
> 
> You think Casinos "play fair" do you? They tend to be quite empirical.
Winning
> consistently is a priori evidence that you are cheating, and Nevada State Law
> allows Nevada casinos to eject cheaters and blacklist them. They don't need
to
> show *how* you were cheating.
> 
> I assume similar mechanisms exist in other casinos. Perhaps less formal, but
> still effective I'd bet.

   This would seem to be an excellent concentrating mechanism for psychic 
ability; have any of the paranormal research groups tried to obtain the
gambling blacklist as a pool from which to aquire volunteers or hire 
subjects?

   Of course the blacklist may concentrate other abilities that would tend 
to confound such research to some degree.  :) :) :)

> 	-- Charles

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: _The Mismeasure of Man_
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:02:27 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords: 

In article <Neo6iB2w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
]        Seriously though, I'm not even sure if I'd agree that Jackson 
]had a better, intrinsic atheltic potential; I recall reading somewhere that 
]obesity was linked to overfeeding when an infant, so if his mom was generous 
]with the Similac, Bo might know Cheetos real well. There are environmental 
]factors as well-- supportive environments for athletic ability are important 
]as well.
]        It's always seemed to me that environmental factors cannot be 
]completely ruled out when trying to decide whether an individual or group of 
]individuals has an 'intrinsic ability' that sets them apart at birth, apart 
]from obvious variances from the norm-- malformed limbs, Down's syndrome, etc. 
]So the degree to which abilities are intrinsic is a lot tougher to pin down 
]than actual physical attributes.

And it seems to me that genetic factors cannot usually be completely
ruled out. For example, we are learning that more and more mental disorders,
once thought to be environmentally caused, are of biological origin and
often inheritable. Furthermore, given the substantial genetic variation
in obvious physical characteristics (Ross Perot could never have been
a star basketball player at 5'6"), it would shock me to discover that
there are not also significant genetic variations in mental characteristics,
which would include "intelligence" however you define it, variations in
relative abilities (math, spatial, verb al, etc), emotional variations,
etc.

Fortunately, it is possible to determine through research that there
are indeed heritable mental variations. IQ (although it is a very
poor measure) does indeed track the IQ of parents, although it tracks
parenting (ie, early developmental interaction with parents) even
better. This data comes from separated-at-birth adoption studies.

Up to a certain (fairly low) level of IQ, the speed of the brain 
(in generating evoked response potentials to stimulae) is related
to IQ.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: dall@hfrd.dsto.oz.au (Ian Dall)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Consensus: Too Sluggish or Too Hasty?
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:08:09 GMT
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation


In article <508@tdatirv.UUCP>, sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> In article <3622@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
> |Protest! Pooh-poohed by U.S. oil-geologists, who didn't like to have
> |to discard a lot of what they had learned.  See the Scientific American
> |article about this about ten years ago.  European geologists were 
> |generally more favorable to the idea.  ...
> |
> |The idea was rejected for two scientific reasons: the speed Wegener
> |had proposed (many orders of magnitude above the real values of about
> |1 cm per year) and the mechanism he proposed. ...
>  
> Primitive predecessors of certain theories are often rejected because of
> very real inadequacies.  It takes a very perceptive individual to see
> a core of truth in an otherwise invalid model.

Not in this case. I remember as a child (not sure what age, definitely
primary school, probably about 10yrs) looking through an atlas and
thinking that the shape of the continents looked like they were once
joined together.

Granted the fit is not perfect, so there was room for differing view
points, but I think this is a case where the choice of null hypothesis
was influenced by ones preconceptions. If you have been brought up to
think that continents are solid and unmovable then I suppose you are
going to assume that they are unmovable until proved otherwise.
If you just look at an atlas without any preconceptions you might
have a different null hypothesis.

To put this in perspective, I was pretty interested in science (at the
level a 10yr old can read) and certainly would have known that the
earth was once molten and still has a molten core. I doubt if I had
any idea on whether the continents were *still* moving and I certainly
had never heard of plate tectonics (when did that become accepted anyway?
it is 25 years since I was 10).

We sometimes get hung up about discovering mechanisms. Mechanisms are
certainly useful when they are discovered, but they are by no means
necessary for knowledge to be scientific.

Newton said the apple fell because of gravity (possibly apocryphal)
but as far as I know we are not much further along in answering the
question of why gravity makes the apple fall. This doesn't make the
theory of gravity any the less scientific.

-- 
Ian Dall          I'm not into isms, but hedonism is the most
                  harmless I can think of. -- Phillip Adams
  ACSnet: dall@hfrd.dsto.oz
internet: dall@hfrd.dsto.oz.au
From: dwatson@lookout.uswest.com (Darryl D. Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: rationalism, empiricism and astrology
Keywords: rationalism, empiricism, astrology
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:09:03 GMT
Organization: US WEST Communications

In article <tgee.702349273@cunews>, tgee@superior.carleton.ca (Travis Gee) writes:
> A lot of the arguments posted in this group seem pretty empirical
> (ie., the old 'why don't we _observe_ rich psychics' syndrome). Are
> there any rationalists out there? If so, please consider the
> following, and correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
>    This argument was inspired by Bertrand Russell's objection to the
> irrational beliefs of a certain sect of nuns (out-of-memory flag on
> essay title retrieval).  Here goes:
> 
>    If we are to believe astrologers, all humans are influenced by the
> position of the stars at the moment of birth.  An accurate 'chart'
> requires knowledge of the birth time to the minute.  If the forces
> exerted by the planets and stars are sufficiently strong that they
> influence our psychic make-up in an indelible kind of way, then how is
> it that after travelling through light-years of space, miles of
> atmosphere, and layers of cement (in the house/hospital walls and
> floors) they are confounded by the few centimetres of flesh which
> house the newborn?  
>      Is it not more rational to believe that IF such
> forces exist, and indeed modify the psyche of the fetus, then the
> accurate measurement to which astrologers pretend is impossible,
> because such forces work on the fetus for a period of 9 months, plus
> or minus the two weeks of error variability surrounding the normal
> gestation period? This reduces the concept of the 'sign' to gibberish,
> because there is no way of determining it unless the exact moment of
> _conception_ is known. 

*Sigh*.  It is possible that the planetary configurations
REFLECT the environmental conditions at birth, not INFLUENCE
them.  How could this possibly work?  I don't know.

There are too many variables to conduct a controlled
experiment.
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 14:40:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.221843.22815@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>,
kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.092904@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
>}   Things that are implausible and untestable are worthless.  The second
>}something becomes testable, it gains worth.  The atheist (I'm not one)
>}equates the worthlessness of God by my standard with his nonexistence.  
>}Everyone who beleives in God finds him to have some positive or negative 
>}worth :-).
> 
> Just because we don't understand something well enough to test it,
> doesn't make it worthless. There are plenty of people who use
> intuition everyday to better their lives, but couldn't tell you
> how it works or how to test it.

   I didn't say the test had to be done by the person in question, 
now did I?  In addition, you ignored the work "implausible".  Psi
is implausible.  Intuition is not.  In addition, the existence of
intuition has been repeatedly verified (I use it myself) and plausible
mechanisms in terms of human neurophysiology have been advanced.

   Psi, on the other hand...

>  
> }} It is the nature of science to require proof before asserting something
> }} as a fact. But, we cannot overgeneralize this principle to mean that if
> }} you can't prove it, then we know it doesn't exist.
>  
> }   If we don't know if it exists then the sensible default assumption is
that
> }it doesn't exist.  This is because the nature of our perception of reality
> }is such that almost all new things we imagine do not and can not exist.  The
> }assumption of nonexistence should be tested whenever resources allow, 
> }certianly.  The extensive negative results and weak positive results for psi
> }indicate the current sensible assumption about psi is that it doesn't exist.
> }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.
> 
> It may be a sensible default assumption for you, but for me it isn't.

   Clearly :-).  You don't mind wasting your time as much as I do.

> I have personal experiences that tell me different. I also will keep an
> open mind to alternative explanations for PSI. Not just any alternate
> explanation, but ones that make sense and explain my experiences for
> me.

   Good.  I suspect we place different amounts of importance on personal 
experience.  I trust my inner senses far more than you do :).

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ttw@beta.lanl.gov (Tony Warnock)
Subject: Psychics and lotteries, explanation
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
 
 
       Being psychic tends to make one unlucky.
 
 
 
                                    Superstition brings bad luck.
                                               - Raymond Smullyan
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:55:19 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men
From: sjc28473@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven Joseph Chmura)
Subject: Re: Evolution and God
Keywords: Evolution,proof
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:45:31 GMT

geoff@satori.equinox.gen.nz (Geoff McCaughan) writes:

>K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) writes:

>> 3) Evolution and adaptation within species is not under dispute. Iunderstood
>> the question to refer to evolution from one species into another. I believe
>> the absence of intermediate forms is one reason why the theory remains an
>> hypothesis.

There will always be "absence of intermediate forms."  A line is composed of two points.  When divided, there still exist infinitely many points on that
line.   Thus, when and if someone finds intemediate X between species Y and Z, 
some creationist will scream, "but there is a gap between Y and Z".


>You believe wrong. The "absence of intermediate forms" is a chestnut
>often trotted out in arguments against evolution. *All* life forms are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I like that :)
>"intermediate" biology is replete with examples [two off the top of my
>head, the R-complex in the human brain, and the appendix].

-- 
							Steven Chmura
							"4-weeks till..	
							MD-2-B
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Psychics in Casinos
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:30:34 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Apr14.195031.1@indyvax.iupui.edu>, harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu writes...

>Casinos discourage card-counters in blackjack and "system" players because
>they are distracting and boring.  It would be interesting to find out how many
>innocent gamblers have been blacklisted this way.  Not many, I'd bet.  Besides,
>if the casinos are discriminating against psychics, why don't they switch to
>lotteries or horseracing?

I doubt very much is casino managers are concerned about card-counters being
either distracting or boring.  I knew a couple of guys in college who did this,
and were eventually run out of Las Vegas.  No one would let them in.  They 
got beat up a couple of times trying.  Just because they were boring?  Sure.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson)
Subject: Re: Consensus: Too Sluggish or Too Hasty?
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:55:33 GMT

In article <22557@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>
>(2) The example you give is a emotionally charged.  Many people make wierd
>claims  (perpetual motion, vacuum energy, PSI, Relativity is wrong, etc.) 
>which have no societal implications, and for which there is no a priori

This is to me an amazing perspective.  I doubt the possibility of
"perpetual motion", but it clearly would have enormous "societal
implications", as would all your other examples, if real.  The societal
implications of any source of energy that is now unknown are great
simply because we are an energy hungry folk, to say nothing of the
scientific implications  -- by definition, new sources mean new
understandings, and probably revision or extension of theoretical
models.  With regard to psi, assuming I mean by the term what you mean, 
the implications are similarly powerful, and include an impetus to include 
consciousness in physical models, from which it is no excluded (except 
for somewhat related qualifications for the "observation" in some 
expressions of QM).

>reason for scientists to act irrationally about.  I go ballistic every time 
>someone tells me that scientists are suppressing evidence of UFO's or perpetual
>motion machines, or whatever.  Why would we do this?  I could become famous
>by providing evidence for any of the things we are accused of covering up or
>denying.

Only if your evidence could be verified, replicated, and maybe only if
it could be explained.  Your point is that scientists are rational, and
look at evidence.  The question is whether this is true, especially in
cases that threaten to upset the paradigmatic apple cart.  Too sluggish,
too hasty?  Good question, in principle, but seems best to apply case by
case.  Personally, I believe that the scientific process gradually
yields more refined descriptions that include more information that is
valid, and exclude more misapprehensions, in short that the "truth" will
out. 

Roger N
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Nazca "Airfields"?
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:14:51 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway

In <VuZyiB1w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>        Actually it'd make one HELL of a rut; the soil in the Nazca lines is 
>pretty soft, from what I've read. One imagines the landing gear coming down, 
>plunging into the loamy surface, half burying itself, and snapping from the 
>sheer weight and inertia of the plane...

Well you see, they actually teleported in or something like that.  So
why the airstrip?  The religion of the aliens required scratching
lines into the ground to look like an airstrip before a transporter
station could be set up for some reason or other. :-)
-- 
I'll leave you with this saying:
Are we live or on tape?
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Matriarchy revisited
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:19:33 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <1992Apr15.170349.15823@b11.ingr.com> craig@jido.b11.ingr.com writes:
:
:I seem to have lost track of my copy of the article this is a
:followup to, but it was the one in which the book,
:
:Tavris, Carol, and Wade, Carole, _The Longest War: Sex Differences
:in Perspective_, 2nd ed., Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch, 1984
:
:was recommended.

:At any rate, it's fair to say that this chapter identifies the
:Yoruba, the Iroquois, and the Samoans, as traditional cultures
:providing high status for women. Whether any of these qualify
:as "matriarchies" is, as has been pointed out, a matter of
:interpretation.

	Another possibility: "equi-archy" or "ambi-archy" or parity
between the sexes. Did the authors of that study take seriously that
possibility? It would seem that the Yoruba, the Iroquois, and the
Samoans would come pretty close.

:If there is an agenda in this book, it is to make a case that
:cultures are evolving toward an alliance between the sexes,
:after the millenia of male domination and sex-role strife.
:I reserve judgement on whether they have made a case that this
:is happening, as I did not read the entire book.

	Was there any discussion of the question of hostility between
the sexes? Was it the strongest among the most male-dominated or the
least male-dominated? Somehow, I suspect the former would be the case;
my favorite example is that of Greek (male) heroes killing Amazons.
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.misc
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Understanding Dolphin talk
Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 14:20:14 GMT

From article <z+kj-qh.sss@netcom.com>, by sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions):
> In article <1992Apr2.114055.3744@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> 
> 	toma@cdc910b21.gsfc.nasa.gov (Tom Atwater) writes:
>>
>>There is a guy named Lilley Or Lilly, first name Robert (I think), who has
>>spent his life doing this, and I believe has written books.
>>He is considered flaky by some -- e.g., he uses psychoactive drugs.
> 													  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Do you know this for a fact, or are you just repeating what you've heard?
> If you can't get his name right, I don't trust your biography. 

There was an article in Omni magazine about Lilly about ten years ago.  He
did an interview and talked about some of the psychoactive drugs he did.
He told how he almost died from one instance after a 200 day high.  They
also talked about how the movie "Altered States" was based loosely on him.
I think Tom may be generous by saying he is considered flaky by some, after
reading the article.
> 
> John Lilly did Dolphin research in the 60's and 70's.  And as for your
> reference to drugs, Lilly has done research in LSD and other drugs and
> was the creator of the Isolation Tank.
> 
> He is an M.D. by the way.

Paul Schmidt
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Understanding Dolphin talk
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:35:15 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Pick up Lilly's book "Man and Dolphin."
 
There has been quite a bit of work done at the U. of HI.  
Give them a call.
 
A couple of things about Dolphinese:
 
1) They are at least able to deal with symbolic language at a rudimentary
level (ala chimps).
 
2) Their sonic bandwidth and associated brain structures are about
as great as our hearing.  In other words, it appears they can
project images to each other instead of or in addition to using 
symbolic language.  Reason exists for believing this may be the
case:  Two dolphins separated for a time were reunited.  They
spent a lot of time facing each other.  A microphone was placed
between them.  A very tight, high bandwidth sonic beam existed
between their heads, but not elsewhere.  It appeared they were
whispering images to each other.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Understanding Dolphin talk
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:38:23 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Correction to my prior post:
2) Their sonic bandwidth and associated brain structures are about
as great as our VISION.

Sorry for any confusion.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Xref: sparky sci.research:476 sci.misc:1025
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Understanding Dolphin talk
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:50:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The title of this thread is infinitely more interesting than any of the
screeds of guff about Flakey John. If anyone has any hard data about this
topic, please share it; I'm sure I'm not the only one yawning over the
senile meanderings of sci.research contributors to date.

What I know - we know next-to-nothing on this topic; despite valiant
attempts at spectral analysis and behavioural training, communication
attempts have merely established a lower limit on the IQ (anthropomorphic
version). As to communication _per se_ - nothing at all. Comments?
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | wolfpack, silver, down to the water             |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew palfreyman@cup.portal.com   |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bsang@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Daniel Ang)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Need help on hypotheses trapping
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:41:07 GMT
Organization: Monash University

Your help is appreciated.

I am currently conducting interviews regarding decision made by individual.
Through the interview I need to determine the hypotheses that the decision
maker use to make his decision. For example, a manager decided to terminate 
a line of business. His hypothesis may be: poor profit margin, cash flow 
problem, expecting economic downturn, etc. 

My problem is how is the best way to trap the hypotheses during the interview.
Is there any techniques or literature on hypotheses trapping?

Thank you.

_____________________________
Daniel Ang      	       	       	   Aarnet:  bsang@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au
Research Assistant      	       	    Phone:   + 61 3 573 2620    	
Department of Information Systems    Fax:     + 61 3 573 2745
P.O. Box 197
Caulfield East, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 
Organization: Junior, History, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA