HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Inerrancy: silly debate
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:29:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute


>>> Leviticus ... fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon all
>>> fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".
>>
>>  This isn't a mistake, its an idiom.
>>
 >  This renders "inerrancy" a nonsense.  Any passage you might previously
 >  have argued was an error, you now argue is an idiom.

Do you really think that _whoever_ wrote Leviticus couldn't count to six, 
or even eight for arachnids?  And was it really necessary to count the
legs of a millipede?  'Fourfootedly' obviously means "not upright, on two 
feet, like a man".  I seem to recall that some translations just use terms 
like 'creep' or 'crawl'.  

Here's another one.  The Bible says:

  "As a man thinks in his own heart, so is he."

Now is that a true statement?  Well of course it's a profound moral truth.  
But what about these biologists and neurophysiologists who say that we 
don't think with our _hearts_, we think with our _brains_, and our hearts 
are nothing but lumps of muscle!  Who's right, the Bible or the fallible, 
sinful humans?

See how silly it gets?   

Cheers, Ben
From: avi@hawk.imagen.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:02:40 GMT
Reply-To: avi@hawk.imagen.com
Organization: none


>	I'd agree entirely that it's an idiom.That's the point.If the
>Bible is to be taken literally,then it musn't use idioms.
>	I'm told (by Justin,a friend of mine who's read it that there's
>a book which is basically an analysis of the New Testament by a native
>Aramaic-speaker. Apparently some of the puzzling passages,and even some
>of the miracles,are the result of direct translation of idioms.I.e. ...
>(At a party)
>	"Jesus,get Your round in."
>	"It's not My turn."
>(some time later)
>	"Come on,Jesus,get Your round in!"
>	"It's still not My turn."
>(eventually)
>	"Jesus,is it Your turn yet?"
>	"Yes,it is"
>...at which point,Jesus takes cups of water and adds the wine to them...
>thus turning the water into wine,in aramaic idiom at least.
>Moral: idioms can be dangerous things.

I second that, at least in principle. While the above example would NOT make any sense
in Aramaic (or any semitic language such as Hebrew , Arabic, etc.) - it is very true
that languages could not be fully translatable, since they mirror their own environment
and culture. 

A known example is from the Old Testament, where Moses came down from Mount Sinai after
speaking with God. Michael Angelo, created the Moses sculpture where Moses have 2 HORNS
coming out of his forehead !!!

The bible was saying in Hebrew that his face shined, but the word "shined" ("Karan" in Hebrew)
is the same word, or root-word as for a horn ("Keren" in Hebrew). SO the Catholic translators
of the Hebrew Bible into Latin mistaked that BIG TIME, and the result - the famous statue of
Moses with Horns on his head !!!

Another good example, from English, is:  Suppose a text will be saying something like:
"And he prayed for rain, and soon, it was raining cats and dogs"...

Well obviously, a translator (not a good one) will take that LITERALLY and make that into
a miracle, where the guy that prayed for rain, caused CATS and DOGS to come down from the
sky, and before you know it - you'll have a religion based on this guy ...
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: tjfs@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele)
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic: The Frequently Questioned Answers
Organization: Tadpole Technology plc
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:24:54 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <skeptic-faq_722005554@gec-mrc.co.uk> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:

   Occasionally one sees a machine which could work in theory but would
   produce very tiny amounts of energy.  For instance, one can set up a
   gyroscope which always points in one direction (this is how the
   gyrocompass in an aircraft works).  The earth will rotate underneath
   this once every day (to an observer standing on the Earth it looks
   like the gyro is rotating).  So you could attach gears and a generator
   to the gyroscope and use this rotation to get electricity.  The
   4,320,000:1 gearing required is left as an exercise for the student,
   as is naming the source of the energy it would generate.

You can buy a clock from somewhere which never needs winding.  It
works by using the principle of a barometer.  A metal tube is
evacuated and bent into a spiral.  As the air pressure around it
changes, the spiral changes shape slightly; this effect is magnified
by a rack & pinion at the centre of the spiral and causes a pointer to
move in the barometer or powers the winding mechanism in the clock,
rather like a self-winding watch which relies on wrist movement.

It's remarkable how easy it is to construct problems from everyday
things which are surprising in their behaviour.  Two examples (for
which I am indebted to a friend and a book by Martin Gardner):

a) A bottle of milk containing normal milk (cream on top) is shaken up
and then left to settle.  Does the pressure at the bottom of the
bottle increase, decrease or stay the same?

b) You buy cup of coffee with a tub of milk, but then get called to
the phone.  If you want your coffee to be as hot as possible, should
you put the milk in before you take the call or when you return?

Answers below.


Tim

a) The milk loses potential energy as the denser water falls to the
bottom and the less dense cream rises to the top.  This causes the
pressure at the bottom of the bottle to increase slightly.

b) You should add the milk before you go as the rate of cooling of the
coffee is proportional to the temperature difference between the
coffee and the room.
From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: Skeptical Scope
Keywords: Loons 
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:32:35 GMT

In article <1e8nslINNgmo@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.121116.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>>Just imagine the feast that we would have if Rober McElwaine, the 
>>person most responsible for downgrading the value of my B.Sc.,
>>(B.Sc from which university ??) started posting to this group!!
>
>I hate to break this to you, but he *DOES* post to sci.skeptic.

He posts EVERYWHERE.  You cannot ESCAPE.  He showed up in rec.gardens fer
chrissake.  When he figured out that people, maybe even the majority of 
Usenet readers, had put him in their kill files, he had SOMEONE ELSE post
for him.  BEWARE, he will FIND YOU.

---Bill VanHorne

--------------------------------------------------
Please try to use the word paradigm in every post.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Rant concludes
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:32:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.135325.7347@relay.nswc.navy.mil>, snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt) writes in part:
|> I do remember being singularly unimpressed
|> with freshman geology and geomorphology "how do they KNOW, that
|> hunk of blue quartz is a billion years old?"  Think of it as
|> "reverse" skepticism. 

I think of it as "know nothingness".  Most "freshmen" are skeptical
of things that are not "intuitively obvious", i.e., that they haven't
experienced or thought about before.  This is natural, but one must
be grow out of.

If you had HONESTLY raised the "how do they know" question, I am 
positive you would have found plenty of pointers in the references 
that would have led you to discover the good reasons for trusting the 
claims of geomorphology.  This is sometimes called "learning".

|> Disclaimer:  I am not asserting ANYTHING, I was just trying to
|> make you smile, this is a light hearted post! 

Being ignorant is nothing to be ashamed of, but it always embarasses
me to see someone who is proud of his ignorance.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: tjfs@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele)
Subject: Re: Making Your Telephone a Feephone
Organization: Tadpole Technology plc
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:33:34 GMT

No, it was possible with the old Strowger equipment (widely prevalent
until privatisation, a few years ago).  Basically you connect a
capacitor in series with the phone.  The Strowger exchange would see
the call as terminated and wouldn't charge any more; however, until
the selectors actually moved on (which could be quite a long time,
especially at night) you could contine to talk for free.

Tim
From: lopresti@henson.cc.wwu.edu (lopresti robert)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Bermuda Triangle...Square One
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:55:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Nov17.155509.6217
Organization: Western Washington University


You might want to take a look at SQUARE ONE this week (Nov 16-20).  SO
is a PBS daytime show aimed at convincing middle school kids that
math is useful and interesting.  The first half of each show is various
gameshows and sketches (recent ones include math-oriented parodies of
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Fawlty Towers).   The second half
is MATHNET, a parody of DRAGNET in which Pat Tuesday and George
Frankly, mathematicians for the NY Police Dept, solve math related crimes.

Every year they have had at least one crime related to the paranormal
(a supposed psychic who claimed to predict earthquakes, another
who claimed to predict the winners of ballgames, a supposedly haunted
house, etc).

On Monday of this week the Mathnetters were guests on a talk show (Phil
Donawhy, I believe) and tried without much luck to convince him of the
importance of mathematics.  He was more excited about his other guest,
Captain Queeg, a Bogart-lookalike who had just had supernatural
experience in the Bermuda Triangle.  When George Frankly started 
deconstructing the BT legend the show host kicked him off.  Now
presumably they will spend the rest of the week proving Queeg a
phony.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Ethics
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:44:15 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <GERRY.92Nov16134820@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>In a recent post, Carl suggested that the results of the Nazi's
>"research" has not been made public because of the means used to
>obtain it.

Actually, I suggested (tongue in cheek) that the reason the data has not been
made public is because it contains details of a secret weapon that was adopted
by the United States and pointed out that the reason usually given for not
having made the data public is an ethical one.

>So the question is this: If information has be obtained
>using an unethical means, is it ethical to use the information anyway?
>I don't see a problem with using such information, as long as the
>people who gathered the initial data are punished by society for their
>unethical behavior.  In the aforementioned case of the Nazis, they
>were all imprisoned or executed and will obviously not benefit from
>their efforts, so why not use the information?

Well, the argument usually given is one of deterrence.  There may be people out
there who'd be willing to perform similar experiments to advance knowledge,
even if they knew that upon publishing the results of their research they'd be
punished.  The argument goes that anyone so inclined will have less incentive
to conduct such research is he knows in advance that the results will never be
made public.

Please note:  I am not supporting the above argument;  I'm simply pointing out
that it's the one usually given in response to Gerry's question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: SEXY PSYCHIC PLANTS
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:54:43 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire


          

                               SEXY PSYCHIC PLANTS

          A humorous quote from "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS", [See 
          Footnote.], by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, 1973, 
          page 38: 
          
          ....."As Sauvin's main problem remained that of getting his 
          plants to be sharply attuned to his person rather than to 
          their immediate environment, when he was away for several 
          days, he had to devise some means of attracting his plants' 
          attention even more effectively than addressing them over the 
          long-distance phone.  As his plants reacted most strongly to 
          any damage done to himself or to any part of his own energy 
          field, he experimented with remotely killing a few cells of 
          his body in the presence of the plants.  The system worked 
          admirably.  The problem was to obtain cells that would remain 
          alive for protracted periods.  Blood worked well enough, hair 
          was difficult to kill, but sperm worked best of all, because, 
          as Sauvin explained, it was easier to obtain than bleeding, 
          and much less painful. 

               "These experiments led Sauvin to wonder if plants might 
          not react just as well to emotions of pleasure and joy as to 
          pain and shock.  Not only was he tired of shocking himself, 
          he was afraid that repeated shocks to his plants, even 
          indirect ones, might be UNPLEASANTLY LOADING HIS KARMA.  
          
          [DITTO for vivisections, animal experiments, etc..]
          
          Sauvin soon found that his plants did react to joy and 
          pleasure, but with wave patterns that were not sharp enough 
          to trigger a switch reliably.  Undaunted, Sauvin decided on a 
          more daring experiment.  DURING A HOLIDAY WITH A GIRL FRIEND 
          AT HIS LAKESIDE COTTAGE HE ESTABLISHED THAT HIS PLANTS, 
          EIGHTY MILES AWAY, WOULD REACT WITH VERY HIGH PEAKS ON THE 
          TONE OSCILLATOR TO THE ACUTE PLEASURE OF [his] SEXUAL CLIMAX, 
          GOING RIGHT OFF THE TOP AT THE MOMENT OF ORGASM.  All of 
          which was very interesting and could be turned into a 
          COMMERCIALLY MARKETABLE DEVICE FOR JEALOUS WIVES TO MONITOR 
          THEIR PHILANDERING HUSBANDS, BY MEANS OF A POTTED 
          BEGONIA.".... 
          
          (EMPHASIS, and comment, added.)
          
          
          Footnote: Chapter 17 is about BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS.
                    Chapters 19 and 20 are about RADIONICS/PSIONICS.
                    Entire book is FASCINATING!



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          INTERESTING Quote, WITH my comments, is ENCOURAGED.


                                    Robert E. McElwaine     
                                    B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Mars effect
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:17:20 GMT

SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de writes:

> 
>My Mars effect messages are about to disappear from
>this list. There was no reply. Why?
> 
>Hypothesis (1) The sci.sceptic forum serves to exchange views
>               not research results.
>Hypothesis (2) The stuff was too technical
>Hypothesis (3) Readers interested in the messages have been
>               waiting for a reply by Jan W Nienhuys, the main
>               former discussant on that subject. But he did not reply.
>Hypothesis (4) The topic has become boring.
>Hypothesis (5) Not responding to my message (lack of reinforcement)
>               will make me stop sending such nuisance.
>Hypothesis (6) ....
>Hypothesis (7) ....      (You may continue if you like)
> 
>S. Ertel

Hypothesis (n) Those reading the messages require time to digest
               their content before replying.
Hypothesis (n+1) Lurkers who are not "up" on the subject are
               awaiting other replies before considering to
               contribute to the discussion (which may result
               in a "chicken and egg" scenario).
 
Given the low signal to noise ratio of late (some might say it's 
less than 1, but I won't go so far as to say *that*), I encourage you
to continue. I've been archiving many of the substantive exchanges
on the Mars Effect here, and look forward to seeing more.
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                  anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,   \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it." \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                           \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: FAQ refinements regarding HIV and AIDS
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:29:11 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)

>>Duesberg's theory is: HIV is a harmless retrovirus that may serve as a
>>marker for people in AIDS high-risk groups.

A less outrageous version of Duesberg's theory is that HIV alone is
harmless, and that it needs a cofactor.  Certain research indicates
that this may be strictly true, but the cofactor, instead of being
some external agent like poppers as Duesberg proposed, has turned
out to be foreign lymphocytes.  The irony is that exchanging bodily
fluids also exchanges lymphocytes anyway.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
One quickie reference to partial Duesberg validation is John Maddox
"AIDS research turned upside down" NATURE 353, p297.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: aids and the cia
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:16:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.151454.4886@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne) writes:
>
>>In article <17NOV199216042949@elroy.uh.edu> st1xu@elroy.uh.edu (Carr, Emery D.) writes:
>>>
>>>read AIDS and the doctors of death. 
>
>>read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer.
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>A very good book, IMHO.
>
>I've been looking other opinions on it. Do you know of any reviews?

I've never seen it reviewed, but I remember hearing that Dwight Eisenhower
passed the book out to all his friends and acquaintances in the last days
of his presidency.  It's been around awhile, and unfortunately, is still
relevent today.

---Bill VanHorne
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:08:19 EST

In article <1992Nov17.172820.13871@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.200421.1@cs2.lamar.edu> carlis_jc@cs2.lamar.edu writes:
>>If nothing else the Bible is a masterpeice of the english language.
> Damn straight.  If English was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for
> me.
Nononononononononono - KJV *is* a masterpiece of the English language.
The early texts are a masterpiece of the Greek language.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are a masterpiece of the Aramaic Language.
The {...} bible is a masterpiece of the {...} language.

Do they say the same thing? Weeellllll..........

GXKambic
sd

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19795 alt.messianic:3468
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:16:49 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@hydra.UUCP (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

In article <1992Nov17.043358.16082@bony1.bony.com> billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.203736.12929@imagen.com> avi@seal.imagen.com writes:
>>
>>First and foremost, it is said in the New Testament (sorry can't remeber the 
>>chapter and verse number or even book, but you'd recognize it) that one of the
>>members of the Sanhedrin, quieted the others by saying something like: don't
>>worry about him there were others before him and they appeared and disapperaed
>>and teh Jewish people forgotten about them, so this will also be his fate.
>
>I only recognize this as the end of a movie often on TV around Easter
>(The Greatest Story Ever Told?), spoken by Martin Landau.  If it's
>actually in the New Testament, I'd like to see a reference.  Please try
>to keep the poetic license of Hollywood out of this discussion, it's
>totally irrelevant.
>
>
I would suspect that this is a corrupted reference to Gamaliel's 
speech before the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:34-39: But a certain Pharisee named 
Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, rose up
in the council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short 
time.  And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose 
to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be
somebody; and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. And he was
slain; and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this
man Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people
after him. And he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered.
And so in the present case I say to you, stay away from these men and let them
alone, for if this plan or action should be of men it will be overthrown;
But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may 
even be found fighting against God."

Bill Hamilton
GM Research Labs
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:38:44 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 5AL@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz, cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:
> G T Clark (gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> > 
> > 	The bible is patently not inerrant.Read Leviticus,chapter 18(or
> > thereabouts) where it fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon all
> > fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".That's quite clearly a mistake,
> > no matter what stage it crept in at.
> 
> This isn't a mistake, its an idiom.
> 

How do you feel about people who refer to software bugs as "undocumented features?"
Or various flavors of Penagonese re-labelings?

Why isn't this an example of the same kind of word game?

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:02:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Astral 2
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.