HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wsadjw@rw9.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Characterization of quack theories
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:03:11 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <dhalliwe.726788960@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:
>"amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>>Look at how people are taught in our educational system:  "This *is*
>>the right answer.  Remember it and place it on the test.  Those other
>>things that people are trying are just crap.  I don't want to hear
>>about them, because *this* is right."  
>
>   I hope that you just were exposed to a rather poor subset of all
>the possible teachers. In my own courses, I definitely try to avoid
>a situation where students are just expected to "remember facts".

I don't know much about the American educational system.  But I can
imagine where this attitude "remember it and place it on the test"
comes from.  I teach classes where the aim is to get the candidates
to understand a piece of theory.  I dare say that I work myself in a
sweat to explain things as clear as I can.  Problem is that many 
participants (nowadays) seem to have forgotten what they have been
taught the year before.  In calculus classes I spend most of my time
explaining over and over again "high school stuff"  and the fact that
many students have been using calculators for a year or two, has caused 
them to forget the tables of multiplication (well, not all of them, but
when a x b equals something over 40 it's really hard for some students).

What can you do in such a situation?  You are more or less obliged to cover
a fixed amount of material, and you get into trouble when too many students
flunk.  So you demonstrate "how to do the problems", you simplify the exam
questions (to the point where the exam consists of reproducing simplified
versions of the exercises) and you implore the candidates not to embark on
self-invented methods (like providing proofs that are actually isolated 
examples, or showing that something is impossible by the argument "I can't
do it"), but stick to the book.  All in the hope that some will pass.

JWN
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22067 alt.messianic:3878 alt.atheism:25133
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 12:45:11 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
> Estimating about 1000 violent deaths in Ireland in the last quarter 
> century, this works out to about 40 murders/bombings/whatnots per year, 
> or about 1/100000 population per year.  As one of the safest, least 
> violent places on the globe (relative to really dangerous places, like 
> Atlanta or <Anytown, USA>), where does Ireland get this reputation?
> They ship children from Ireland to Detroit for the summer "to get them away 
> from all the violence" back in Dublin.

*Snort*

Violence in Dublin?  That's a good one.

Even Belfast is safer than most US cities...


mathew
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Homeopathic remedies
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:35:50 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec28.220247.19534@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
|> wsadjw@rw6.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
|> : 
|> : It is even not much more irrational than astrology.
|> :
|> 
|> Excellent!  
|> 
|> In english that is called being "damned with feigned praise."

The way I have always heard it it:
	"damned with faint praise."
		     ^^^^^
which makes more sense to me.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: pjd@cocamrd.mel.cocam.oz.au (Pat Dooley)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Robert Jahn
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:40:23 GMT
Organization: Co-Cam Computer Group, Oz

I recently saw a bit of a TV program on a Robert Jahn of Princeton who claimed
to be able to demonstrate that people could influence random events. THe show
showed a couple of experiments, one involving beads (?) and another involving
some electronic kit. My recollection is hazy but I wonder if anyone can tell me
more about Jahn?


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: joe@dogface.austin.tx.us (Joe Zitt)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: The Fortress of Ultimate Dorkiness
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:57:08 GMT

In article <C0o7u0.FAr@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
>   Why do people seem to want to believe in the stories?  Skepticism doesn't
>try to serve any purpose except the pursuit of truth.

Sure, for true skepticism. But cynicism often masquerades as skepticism.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Velikovsky Criticisms Wanted
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:50:42 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


>It really shocked my that Sagan spent the amount of time he did in order
>to rebuke Velikovsky.  As a matter of fact, I can't understand why
>anybody would want to invest time and effort in dealing with such obvious
>nonsense.

Because, unfortunately, there are many people with little or no familiarity
with science for whom V.'s ideas are not obviously nonsense. To these
people, silence on the part of scientists looks like embarrassed silence.
Asimov makes this point again and again. These people cannot be ignored
as long as they vote, sit on school boards, etc.



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
From: mjw@mailbox.eng.ufl.edu (Mike Wohlgemuth)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: Engineering Computing Services - Univ. of Fla.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 13:49:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.022547.24574@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
|>   The Catholic Church is led by fallible men who make foreign policy
|> mistakes and have many skeletons in their closets, and they can be 
|> sanctimonious, just like others (I won't mentionany names). But who 
|> hasn't made terrible mistakes, given a thousand years of history and rapidly
|> changing moral values?
|>    And looking back now with comfortable 20/20 hindsight and high moral
|> indignation, who did behave correctly during that awful time?  
|> Your accusation that the Catholic Church "wanted" the Jews and Atheists
|> is revolting.

Well, considering that the Catholic Church, or any organized Christian Church,
claims to have direct contact with the highest moral authority possible, I would
hope that their track record would be better than it is.  If I were communicating
with God on a daily basis, and asking his advice, I don't think he would advise
me to support the Nazis, even if the Soviets had conquerred the rest of the world.

The point that you are missing is that if you claim to speak for a higher moral
authority, and yet you fail to act with any sign of higher morals, then your
claims are rather pointless.  It seems rather pathetic to me that people outside
the Church have to point this out.  I would feel much more comfortable if the 
Vatican would just admit to its mistakes when it makes them and try to do better
next time.  Sure, it would lose political face, but why should it care?

Mike
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:39:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Satan Information.
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

Hey, John..

Does this mean I'm not going to get any money now?

How about this Lucifer guy, think he can spare any change now
that he wants to do something good for change?

A measley half million US dollars would be fine, I need
a new lawnmower.

Thanks, your friend tony.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: interminable ad hominem argument
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:40:35 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: na
Organization: (The Afterlife of Gogol, Inc.)

In article <1993Jan7.141123@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) wrote:
>    Christianity makes a number of demonstrable, falsifiable claims, like
> "murder is, on average, a bad thing".  I think what you getting at is that the
> claims made are often difficult or impossible to quantify and that all doubt,
> debate, evidence, etc. takes place within a set of assumptions that themselves
> have absolutely no rational basis.  Assumptions like, "There is a God and
> we have Half a Clue about what He wants".

I ended up in trouble on one of the religious groups due to demonstration
of logical validity, and where I personally was unable to quantify and
draw a conclusion if premises such as sin, God and similar constructs
ended up in a true or a false statement. Personally I feel that I can't
make the judgement, unless the logical construct could be tested false
or true.

I'm curious to know what is the current state of this important
qualification
system, is it Popper that rules concerning falsification of definitions?
Something else? What's the norm when defining the actual outcome based
on assertions we all don't agree upon? Tautologies and contradictions 
could be used with premises we don't agree upon, as well as p->q->r
statements, but when we are dealing with larger constructs, what's the 
norm?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
Usenix member #6110.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Velikovsky Criticisms Wanted
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 09:42 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <8341@lib.tmc.edu>, draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (E.J. Draper) writes...
>In article <1993Jan5.182915.10798@psych.toronto.edu> Stuart Grant,
>grant@psych.toronto.edu writes:
>>I found _Scientists Confront Velikovsky_ quite good in dealing with
>>_Worlds in Collision_, particularly Sagan's chapter. Can anyone 
>>suggest a book that deals with Velikovsky's later stuff?
> 
>Check out some back issues of _The Sceptical Inquirer_.  I read an
>article about two years ago, also written by Carl Sagan, that utterly
>destroys Velikovsky.

While you're checking out back issues of the _Skeptical Inquirer_,
look for:
     Bob Forrest, "Venus and Velikovsky: The Original Sources,"
         _SI_ vol. 8, no. 2, Winter 1983-84, pp. 154-164.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22347 alt.conspiracy:13976 alt.paranormal:2779
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: more Sarfatti Papers on PSI WARS & NEW AGE
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:09:38 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


Sarfatti rivals Winston but lacks the latter's sincerity.  This is partly
compensated for by a more polished style.  Unfortunately, Sarfatti is
totally lacking in originality, having selected all "information" from
scenes frequently portrayed in the cinema.

_________________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
	     "Everything You Know Is Wrong"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Satan's email - found!
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:53:28 GMT

John may not have wanted the word to get out, but I found it, quite by
accident:

  From devil@HellNet.org Tue Jan 12 11:47:00 1993
  From: devil@HellNet.org (Gil Tene)
  Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.admin,comp.sys.sun.hardware,comp.unix.solaris
  Subject: SUMMARY : SCSI drives that work with Solaris 2.1
  Date: 11 Jan 93 10:20:39 GMT
  Followup-To: comp.sys.sun.admin
  Organization: Diablery, cloud seven, Hell. (also 10A Inc.)

The bugger is quite well versedin SCSI drive technology...





--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The fabric of the American empire ought to
Field Robotics Center,          | rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE
Carnegie Mellon University      | PEOPLE.  The streams of national power ought
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | to flow immediately from that pure, original
(412) 268-3856                  | fountain of all legitimate authority.
                                | Alexander Hamilton
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22377 alt.paranormal:2783
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: California to be Destroyed May 8, Nostradamus Says
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:01:19 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <C0rH03.4Kw@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
>In article <C0rCI2.1JL@brunel.ac.uk>, cs89ssg@brunel.ac.uk (Sunil Gupta) writes:
>
>|> yup and if you look closely in one of the quatrains theres a rhyme about some
>|> prince of Persia who is defeated in a war, only to seek revenge two years
>|> later. I wouldnt call Sadders a prince, but it is two years later and he has
>|> just put made his SAMs operational.
>
>	I also wouldn't call him a Persian.
>

I also wouldn't say he's waited two years to seek revenge.  If that's the
interpretation, any Arab/Israeli conflict scenario could "fulfill" that
prophecy, because it's been going on for a LOOOOONG time.

I just love hearing Nostradamus' predictions and making them fit ANYTHING.
It's easy and fun and you can do it in the comfort of your own home.
	Jason
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:00:50 GMT

In article <1iatk6INNij4@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.014645.6329@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>|> Dear jon:
>|>    You have a real hard time with  "lesser of two evils". How do you 
>|> feel about Churchill given his "make a deal with the devil himself" to
>|> get rid of Stalin?  
>
>
>I think that the trouble you have here is the same confusion that
>you have exhibited before, for example when you talked about
>Chamberlain and Roosevelt.   You want to put everyone who had any
>dealings with Hitler - and now Stalin - on the same level.
>
>But they are not on the same level.   Chamberlain and Roosevelt
>kept a distance between themselves and Hitler, and dealt with him
>only when they had to.   Meanwhile the German Catholic Youth
>Organization was describing Naziism as a "spritual breakthrough".
>The point is that you *do* have to deal with a Hitler from time
>to time, but you don't have to express that kind of enthusiasm.

Err, what does the German Catholic Youth Organization have to do with
the Vatican?

>
>jon.


-- 
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.messianic,alt.atheism
From: kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:30:56 GMT

You're certainly right about one thing...discussing something with you
is a waste of bandwidth...I'm out of it..have fun..I'm sure you'll try
hard to learn something from it :)

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22180 alt.messianic:3918 alt.atheism:25351
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:04:31 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan8.065909.9749@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|> In article <1icv2dINNnga@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >Well, that takes us back to the original question.   If it's so 
|> >obvious that Hitler didn't use christian values, why did the Churches
|> >support him?
|> 
|> I fail to see how the Churches support or lack of support have
|> anything to do with Hitler's values.  Sorry.

You don't?   The Church just supports any old dictator, regardless of
their values?

Can that be what you are saying?


|> You know, you've made that statement before, but the CYO is really
|> not the Church.  It's funny, though, I've never heard a German
|> claim that the reason why he killed Jews was because the Catholic
|> Church supported him and told him it was right, have you?

If I though that was true, probably I would say it.   But I havn't
said that.

Criticising the Churches for their support for Hitler is not the same
thing as saying that Hitler's policies were determined by the Church.

You seem to me to be trying to erect some straw men here.   Am I wrong?

|> >|> Churches, by their nature tend to be nationalistic and supportive
|> >|> of their governemnt.  This is human nature.  
|> >
|> >This rationalization comes up over and over: "The Churches were only
|> >human".
|> >
|> >But that's what we are saying.   The Churches behaved like ordinary
|> >human institutions, just as they have for the last two thousand
|> >years.   Ordinary, greedy, exploitative, opportunist humans.   As
|> >long as Hitler looked like winning, they were all for him, and if that
|> >meant the death of few Jews, so what.    Once he looked like a loser,
|> >they discovered that he had been a monster all along.
|> 
|> That's *your* interpretation of the events.  In addition, you
|> charge that Pope Pius XII had no regard for Jews.  Beside your
|> feeling that he didn't actively oppose the Nazi's, what evidence
|> do you have that this is so? 

Can you quote me saying this?

|> 
|> >
|> >Now is that what we want from Churches?   Is this where we are
|> >supposed to get moral guidance?
|> 
|> Indeed.

Perhaps I might suggest that you are speaking for yourself.

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:02:27 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Wed, 06 Jan 93 12:45:11 GMT
>FROM:   mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
>
>"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>> Estimating about 1000 violent deaths in Ireland in the last quarter 
>> century, this works out to about 40 murders/bombings/whatnots per year, 
>> or about 1/100000 population per year.  As one of the safest, least 
>> violent places on the globe (relative to really dangerous places, like 
>> Atlanta or <Anytown, USA>), where does Ireland get this reputation?
>> They ship children from Ireland to Detroit for the summer "to get them away 
>> from all the violence" back in Dublin.
>
>*Snort*
>
>Violence in Dublin?  That's a good one.
>
>Even Belfast is safer than most US cities...
>
>mathew
>
  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C---->>Killing alt.messianic threads.  They are justifiably
;;| >-  `.__),;;   unhappy with me.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up?
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:13:24 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan5.004243.5643@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
|> >moral authority.  Of course, their leaders are human and make mistakes, but
|> >they never admit it.  They can't, because after that admission, all of their
|> >decisions and positions on all sorts of issues would be suspect:
|> 
|> Oh?  I thought I read that they had recently found Galileo right, and 
|> themselves wrong, albeit some 400 years late :)

Well, let's put it this way.    If I were taking moral instruction
from someone, I'd prefer it be someone who didn't wait four hundred
years to admit their own mistakes.

Especially so when the mistake was an attempt to suppress Scientific
free expression by force.

jon.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22363 alt.paranormal:2781
From: cs89ssg@brunel.ac.uk (Sunil Gupta)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: California to be Destroyed May 8, Nostradamus Says
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:20:25 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Anders Thulin (ath@linkoping.trab.se) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan11.000706.3842@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
: >The Fox TV "Sightings" program January 8 contained the usual sensationalist
: >drivel. They were dealing with "predictions" for 1993, and one guy named
: > ...


: There has been once fairly well-known interpretation of a verse that
: said something about a falling wall. Some claimed it predicted a
: catastrophe at Wall Street, some that it referred to California
: sliding into the Pacific some time during the 1990's -- I wasn't
: interested enough to remember.  It may be that that verse is popping
: up again.

yup and if you look closely in one of the quatrains theres a rhyme about some
prince of Persia who is defeated in a war, only to seek revenge two years
later. I wouldnt call Sadders a prince, but it is two years later and he has
just put made his SAMs operational.

Im sure I read that I'll have to hunt that one down again.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Sunil Gupta ---- a computer scientist in my spare time 
	                   cs89ssg@uk.ac.brunel         
------------------------------------------------------------------------------