HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Science practice (Was Re: faith and skeptics
Date: 8 Oct 92 07:47:02 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Oct7.005156.27201@grebyn.com> rmg3@grebyn.com (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>
>                                     Correlation is not enough, though,
>for more than a head nod that you _might_ have something.  To gain 
>agreement, you also have to show how is works.

Not necessarily.  If the correlation is strong enough (shows up 
reproducibly, is not a result of `fishing' or bad experimental 
practice and not marginal) then you are on to something.
>
>  This is also the history of the Continental Drift hypothesis.  Wegener
>was far from the first person to make a case for it.  He was (one of) 

I don't know of anybody who collected such a large body of evidence.

>the first to propose a mechanism.  The mechanism he proposed was
>ludicrously insufficient, and was promptly recognized as such.  The
>hypothesis sat on the shelf (still being mentioned) for a few decades 
>until (in practice) a mechanism that could work was proposed.  Many of

Wegener had a lot of opposition from American oil geologists who were
just being conservative.  Moreover, if my memory serves me right, 
the case for continental drift was clinched by seafloor spreading,
and that was before a "mechanism"  was proposed.
Or am I wrong?  By the way, not only Wegener's mechanism was wrong,
also his speed estimates.


JWN

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington)
Subject: Successful Zap of President Bush During Sunday's Debate
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:22:13 GMT

This is to indicate that there was a successful deployment of the
IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV effect against George Bush during last
Sunday's debate.  Tonight I'll use it against Dan Quayle.  
Stay tuned for Thursday's and Sunday's deployment.  
 
For the skeptics (yawn...don't they have any friends in the know?)
Count the Thursday blinks on CBS.  Count the Friday blinks.  Compare.
 
If I get enough feedback, I'll change the date I zap.  But I will
not do this for the benefit of one experimenter.  (I just don't
trust you skeptics, I believe most of you to be fanatics).  If
I believe that there will be a legitimate count over a period of
4 or more weeks, I'll change the date to a Tuesday.  But I don't
want to confuse the other lay experiment participants who are
depending on Thursday's zap to verify the phenomenon.  
 
Jeff Harrington
idealord@dorsai.com
 
Good Pizza!  IdEAL!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.sources
From: kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:28:49 GMT

In <1992Oct7.210230.14052@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.180626.15933@pixel.kodak.com> 
>  jeh@raster.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes:
>>CAPS lock key worn out FROM OVERUSE?  Are your EARTH-shattering theories TOO
>>important for LOWER CASE?  Well, help is on the way.  The following filter
>>will give YOUR TEXT THE EMPHASIS it deserves.
>>
>>/* Usage:					*/
>>/* lex cap.l					*/
>>/* cc -ocap lex.yy.c -ll			*/
>>/* cap < mundane_text > very_IMPORTANT_text 	*/

>Could someone PLEASE post some elisp TO DO this?  I have a VERY
>important THEORY about why C and LEX are EVIL and I wish to POST
>them at ONCE.

>c "Real LUNATICS use EMACS" FROG

Here is a LITTLE function I call EMPHASIZE-REGION.  I firmly believe that it
PERFORMS similarly to the lex code posted by Ed Hanway.

Enjoy!

/JOE
----------
(defun emphasize-region (start end)
  "Emphasize words in the region delimited by START and END."
  (interactive "r")
  (narrow-to-region start end)
  (goto-char (point-min))
  (while (forward-word 1)
    (if (= 0 (mod (/ (random) 32) 3))
	(upcase-word -1)))
  (widen))
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Skepticism (Was Re: Faith and sceptics.)
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:09:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.074959.26981@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

[stuff deleted]

|> 
|> Now a positive optimistic person regards skepticism as one of any number of
|> techniques that can he can pull out of his `toolbox' wherever appropriate.
|> He can be a skeptic when it has economic benefits.
|> 
|> He has a heathly veiw of skeptic techniques.
|> 
|> Now the psychology of the negative pessimistic person is that he is generally
|> that way because he has a low self-esteem. Skepticism is his prop.
|> Skepticism is his way of psychologically protecting himself. Because
|> of low self-esteem he does not like to risk ever appearing wrong.
|> Skepticism is a convenient way of always appearing right. Because if
|> you play the skeptic you will some times be right in which case you
|> take delight in saying "I told you so." And if you are wrong, your
|> self-esteem is propped up by saying to yourself "well, it's all part of
|> the method that I took that position." So it's just a way of never looking
|> stupid.
|> 
|> However, successful people are ones who are prepared to risk failure.
|> They make progress, even though they may have a trail of failures behind
|> them. They kept moving.
|> 
|> The guy who keeps static and just protects himself, using skepticism as a
|> psychological mask, retards progress.
|> 
|> I think this is what Mark might have been alluding to. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

Amen to a lucid post on this matter. In an ideal newsgroup, this would end this
discussion, and everyone would be happy. Why don't I feel that will happen here?

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:02:45 EST

In article <1992Oct11.020408.5917@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> In article <1b0h5vINN9be@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.105047.10775@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
Me! - 
>>>>A study could be done to determine if religious beliefs changed the cure rate
>>>>for a series of terminal diseases.  (This has been tried, I believe.)
>>>All that would tell you is how benificial to the human health is that set of
>>>religious beliefs.  It does not tell you anything about the validity of those
>>>beliefs unless that religious belief defined itself in terms of physical
>>>health (which is extremely unlikely).
>>         ???????????????????????????
>>You've *GOT* to be kidding.  In case you're not, consider the following facts:
>>o A substantial percentage of televangelists are faith healers, as well.  
>>o There are several Christian sects which teach that medicine is evil, and that
> I don't see televangelists quiting their beliefs because somebody
> didn't get healed.  They believe that with faith, healing is
> possible.  IF someone doesn't get healed then they didn't have
> enough faith.  In addition, there are other explanations that
> could be given...
Would you give up your belief in your local bank??????  Actually, this is just
such a beautiful catch-22 for the people who desire healing.  If they are
healed the T-E wins, if they are not healed, the T-E wins.  How's that for an
explanation.

> 
> However, most televangelists are Christian in which their central belief is
> in Jesus as the Son of God and Savior.  Whether or not someone gets healed
> doesn't change or invalidate their religious belief at all.
> 
Then why, _why_, is it always, _always_ stressed in the services (programs?)?

[...]
> Thank you for your confidence in me :) I believe that you will
> find that most religions will couch their beliefs in such a way
> that they will be unfalsifiable by scientific standards.  And it's
> always easy for a non-religious skeptic to make fun of *any*
> religious belief for that reason alone.  It's really gets old,
> Carl...

It is true  that  you have pointed out that your religion is untestable.  What
makes you afraid to test it?

GXKambic
sd

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17991 alt.alien.visitors:7459
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: "Extraterrestrials and Angels": Who Are these Clowns?
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:23:51 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <1992Oct15.033343.19955@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
|>         An  ad in the "San Jose Metro," Oct. 8, 1992. (Does anybody  know 
|>         anything  about  this  crowd?  My guess  is  that  they  must  be 
|>         associated with some already-existing New Age group or cult, else 
|>         the attendance at this seminar would likely be zero.)
[...]
|>                 We Are Not Alone! They Are Here ... Who Are They?
|>         
|>                             EXTRATERRESTRIALS/ANGELS
|>         
|>                      Are Current UFO Sightings Linked to the 
|>                      Angelic Visitations of Biblical Times?
|>         
[...]
|>                     Saturday, October 24th, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm
|>                     San Jose LeBaron Hotel, 1350 N. First St.
|>                               Doors Open at 8:00 am
|>                            $75.00 Admission [!!!!!!!!]

Hey, I'm only going to take responsibility for stuff in my own backyard!
You guys out there are going to have to decipher/debug this one on 
your own!

(Sheesh. Do they think those of us in the rest of the world have
any way at all of guessing what might be going on in the Bay Area?
:-))

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17767 rec.org.mensa:7300
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 10 Oct 1992 11:42 MST  
 <7OCT199214181307@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> <1992Oct9.091223.10625@tfs.com>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Oct9.091223.10625@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes...
>lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes...
>>>Derek Bok and four others issued a joint statement saying that there was no
>>>scientific basis for the claims of astrology. I doubt that Derek Bok has read
>>>a book about astrology in all his life.
>>
>>If you're thinking of the Nobelists' "Objections to Astrology" which was
>>issued in the mid-seventies, it was University of Arizona astronomer
>>Bart Bok (now deceased), not former Harvard University president Derek Bok.
>>(And there were more than five signatories.)
> 
>No, I clearly recall it being 5 men, D. Bok that I specifically recall,
>they were all prominent scientists or heads of universities. Seems I vaguely
>recall this other objection too. - could be wrong . . . my best recollection
>is this was near '86, '87, while I lived in Boston area - one reason Bok stood
>out.

Well, 1988 was when the big Nancy Reagan astrologer flap occurred.
The Bart Bok "Objections to Astrology" was in 1975, and was signed by
129 scientists, including 19 Nobelists.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:34:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.schumach.718997655
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
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.

Not many people find Frank's theory and data convincing.
The holes he says he sees in the upper atmosphere look
to others like detector defects or noise. And if there
are car-sized snowballs burning up in the atmosphere
every day, why don't we see them from the ground? A stony
or metallic meteorite the size of a pinhead makes for
a noticeable naked-eye meteor; a big piece of ice ought to
be screamingly obvious.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Larouche-type people...
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:21:43 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Originator: minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu

Some of you may think that this belongs in talk.politics, but
I'm trying to find a pointer to the allegations by some
Larouchites (some handing out literature on campus said
they agreed with it) that much AI research is directed
towards brainwashing...

Thanks a lot!

P.S. Please don't send responses to minsky@media-lab.mit.edu.
He agreed to forward this to sci.skeptic; at the moment we've
had a software upgrade on the computers here and don't really
know why the inews isn't working...

Send responses to:

Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:10:08 GMT

In article <1bchjpINNhim@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.203313.14039@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>I suspect that it is more a matter of conditioning, and that it is
>>not quite so simple. I am reminded of those saying that an addict can
>>just choose to stop using <whatever, cocaine comes to mind>. But saying
>>that ignores what an addiction is. If they could stop, they would not 
>>be addicts.
>
>Well, yes and no.  Given sufficient reason to stop, addicts CAN break the
>addiction.  When I was told that if I kept smoking, my ulcer would probably
>take much longer to heal, I quit smoking.  Period.

I did not say it was impossible, just that the nature of an addiction is
not "I can stop whenever I want".

>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17809 alt.binaries.pictures.d:4797 talk.origins:12904 rec.arts.comics.strips:2793
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.binaries.pictures.d,talk.origins,rec.arts.comics.strips
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:39:58 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1bapegINNdck@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.153721.14742@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>|> Could someone clever please explain the creationism-explained
>past both Mr Bales and Mr Roy have tried to explain it 
>to me, and I didn't quite get it either time.
>

Well, well. If Mr Bales explained it to you and you still
did not get it, I don't stand a chance.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The Question of Humanity's First Language
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:48:49 GMT

In article <1bcitoINNhim@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.123640.21156@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
$ 	Conclusions:
$ 
$ 	According to Punc-Eq, humanity had a relatively small
$ ancestral population, which almost certainly had one language or at
$ most a small group of closely related languages.

>This doesn't follow.  What makes you think that that ancestral population
>developed a language?  There remains the possibility that the population
>increased and spread before the invention of language.

	I may not have made the rest of my argument clear enough.

	I note that language is a universal human feature, and that
all groups of people are equally capable, to within individual
variation. Furthermore, there appear to be some brain adaptations,
such as the specialization of certain brain regions, for the
generation and interpretation of language. These adaptations are
universally present in our species, judging from language skills, if
nothing else, and would presumably have dated back to the ancestral
population. Now these adaptations would probably have not had much
value unless they were put to work, so we can conclude that the
ancestral population had had language.
From: boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop Circles
Summary: How do they make them?
Keywords: Crop Circles
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:10:50 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci

In article <cutler.717878278@cocoa29> cutler@rtsg.mot.com 
(Elliot P. Cutler) writes:
> The farmers were hardly upset about the phenominon since it never
> hurt the plants and they would charge 5 pounds a person for the
> pleasure of seeing the wonders.

Ok, I'll bite:

Just how DOES one make a crop circle?

Lawnmowers?  A big log on a rope?  Tramping around in a circle until
you get really bored?

How do they get out to the circle and back without leaving tracks?

Helicopter?  Balloon?  Parachute?  Big big slingshot?

-- 
Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu         -a +X -x -e -m -S -F"> "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) 
 (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))))
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:27:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.184814.13854@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
}In article <1992Oct9.104128.15001@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:
}>
}>In article <1992Oct8.155217.20940@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au>, keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:
}>(But puts the wrong distribution on it.)
}>> 
}>> In article <LEET.92Oct2093956@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
}>> 
}>>  . . . .
}>> > I refuse to be so rash as to draw any conclusions about science
}>> > teaching's effect on economic viability of a nation, since both Japan
}>> > and the former USSR have taught evolution exclusively during this
}>> > century, and have not performed similarly in the world marketplace.
}>> > 
}>> 
}>> Not USSR. Evidently Marxist theory said something like ``you shouldn't
}>> inherit anything from your parents, not even blue eyes'', so Mendelian
}>> genetics, Darwinian Evolution and even modern breeding techniques were
}>> thrown out. There is a book, title ``Death of a science in the Soviet 
}>> Union'' plusminus ten percent, author unknown; or look up `Lysenko' 
}>> in a detailed history of the USSR.
}
}    Lysenko managed to take advantage of some purges in academia under
}Stalin (amd maybe Beria?) - he convinced the Party that he could mutate
}corn (maize) into wheat and the like with selective breeding programs.
}He then got a post which allowed him to control the study of genetics in
}the Soviet Union for 20-odd years, until the death of Stalin.  I may be
}mistaken, but I believe he was actually put against a wall in the end
}by Khrushchev.

Now mention what this "research" did to the soviet grain production.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 13 Oct 1992 15:40:59 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct13.110940.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, wjiams@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
=	But what if not all comets ARE "end of geological epoch 
=Disaster types?  Frank (Louis Frank, articles in Geophys. Newsletters 
=and book "The Big Splash") has suggested that literally millions of 
=house sized comets enter the earth's upper atmosphere every year--most are 
=vaporized in the outer atmosphere.  What if Tunguska was just one of these 
=that got through the atmosphere?  
=	To expand the discussion, I'd be interested in knowing if there is 
=anyone out there who has some familiarity with Frank's theory.  I find it 
=fascinating and the evidence fairly convincing and yet it isn't reaching 
=the textbooks.  Has it been discredited?  I haven't been able to find any 
=solid arguments to refute his evidence/contentions.  It seems that if the
=theory holds, serious rethinking about origin of oceans, origin of life on 
=earth, etc. will be necessary. 

Why will this "serious rethinking" be necessary if Frank's theory holds?  If
the objects are usually vaporized in the outer atmosphere, then the water vapor
should remain there for quite some time (stratospheric/tropospheric mixing has
a time constant on the order of decades).  The fate of water vapor in the upper
atmosphere is photodissociation and migration of the hydrogen to outer space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism