HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Sensible interpretation of the unknown (was: I don't know).
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:23:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.221843.22815@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>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.

The people who use intuition might not be able to tell you how to test it, but
any decent psychologist should be able to tell you how to, and to direct you to
studies that have mapped, to some extent, its pitfalls.  For example, they'll
be able to point you to studies that describe the sorts of statistical
problems intuition will generally allow you to solve with reasonable accuracy
and the sorts of statistical problems intuition tends to have trouble with. 
With PSI, they can, of course, point you to the sorts of things that PSI
doesn't appear able to do (just about anything), and the sorts of things it
MIGHT be able to do (influence random number generators, maybe).

>It may be a sensible default assumption for you, but for me it isn't.
>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.

Ah, here we have something which the testability of intuition can address.  One
area in which studies have repeatedly shown that intuition is a very poor tool
is in the evaluation of the probabilities of coincidences.  I strongly suspect
you've just provided anecdotal evidence that the studies are, in fact, valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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: grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:28:08 GMT

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
: 
: I believe that science is completely and utterly at odds with any
: but the most generic, nonpredictive belief in God.  With the
: exception of the statement " I believe in a God who created the laws
: of the universe and then sat back to watch," I don't see how you can
: accept the facts of science and the methods of the scientific search
: for truth while "believing in God" at the same time.
: 

Bravo!  Well stated.

The only statement regarding the conflict between religion and science
from a religous leader that has ever impressed me was made by the
Dalai Lama during an interview on TV.  The wording might not be exact,
but the gist of it was:

   There can be no conflict between science and Buddhism.  If science
   ever discovers something that contradicts Buuddhism, then we will
   change Buddhism.

He also said that had he not been a Lama he would have wanted to be an
engineer.  You gotta like the guy.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Edwin Meese made me
Rosemount Inc.                                |wear CORDOVANS!!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Humanoids On Mars (Again)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:30:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.210454.6156@aeras.uucp> jasonh@aeras.UUCP (Jason Harris) writes:
>Why do you need the bulk of the neurons to be centrally located? Why not 
>distribute the intelligence mechanism throughout the body. So long as this
>is sufficiently redundant so as not to cause vulnerability to attack there
>should be no problem with this. It may even be advantageous in some 
>environments.

Why do microchip fabricators continue to work to reduce the size of the chips?
Speed and power considerations.  The longer the distance a signal has to
travel, the longer it will take and the more power it will require.  Try the
following experiment:  Have a friend hold a dollar bill by one end, letting it
dangle so the other edge is between your thumb and forefinger.  Let him drop
the bill without warning, and you try to catch it.  After you've picked the
bill up off the floor, think about what it would be like if there were that
sort of time delay between your brain and your eyes.  Or worse still, if your
every though had that sort of delay built into it millions of times over.  Such
an arrangement MIGHT work, until a predator happened to develop a centralized
brain, at which point you'd find yourself a bit lower on the food chain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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: gvokalek@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (George Vokalek)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Seeking opinions about the work of Wilhelm Reich.
Date: 12 Apr 92 06:40:08 GMT
Organization: Electrical & Electronic Eng., The University of Adelaide

Having encountered some references to Reich's exploration of
the functions of sexual response in animals, and his 'wierd
science' research into 'orgone', I am soliciting this
group for references to reading material which is critical
of his work.

I have references to books on/about him (AMOK), but I believe
that these may all be supportive of him, and I want a bit
of balance.

Thanks in advance,

George.

---
George Vokalek,                                Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
                                           University of Adelaide, GPO BOX 498, 
gvokalek@augean.eleceng.ua.oz.au                 Adelaide 5001, South Australia
From: gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: More on the D.C. Deposition of Geller.
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:55:08 GMT
Organization: Centre Interuniversitaire en Calcul Mathematique Algebrique

In article <1992Apr7.113644.572@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
aa387@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Kutz) writes:

>    Randi's attorney asked permission for me to sit in; again it was
>    denied.  But just before things got underway, Mr. Geller came out and
>    apologized to me up, down, and sideways for having to exclude me.
>    Right.

>    I wondered what would happen if I made myself more visable, so I took my
>    computer and moved to the outer area.  Sure enough, on his next trip
>    through Mr. Geller sat down on the sofa beside me to chat.  He wanted
>    to know ALL about me.  Where did I live?

Maybe he was interesting in dating you? If you are good looking I'd have
to suspect this might be it.
--
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University 
                  gsmith@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.music.classical,alt.folklore.urban
From: spg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie)
Subject: Re: Album by bizzare British spiritualist
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:57:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.161316.7018@psych.toronto.edu> stephan@psych.toronto.edu (Stephan Hamann) writes:
>
> I've been going crazy trying to find information on a bizzare British
>lady spiritualist who claims that she communicates with long-dead composers.
>Apparently she goes into a trance and writes down music by a form of
>automatic writing, producing "Mozart" and "Beethoven" sonatas, "Chopin"
>mazurkas, etc., quickly and effortlessly. 
>
> I don't know her name, but I do know that a) she is a decent amateur
>pianist who at one time performed these dictations in public, and b) that
>she was in the news much more in the 1960s and '70s than now. I read about
>her once somewhere, and a friend tells me that she actually did an album.
>Any info on this colorful woman or her album would be appreciated!
>

And there's also a parrot that was supposedly owned by John Lennon, and that
knows lots of unreleased Lennon material. I believe there are plans for an
album.



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Humanoids On Mars (Again)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:24:55 GMT

In article <22686@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>You make the assumption that your hypothetical predator has a significant
>probability to evolve in a world dominated by a very different neural
>architecture.  I imagine that if life exists in abundance throughout the
>universe that the "best engineering solution" to various problems are rare
>indeed.  Evolution is a highly contingent process.  Organisms are committed by
>their genetic inheritance to a very limitted range of variation.

True.  That means that we'd expect to see a gradual shift toward a centralized
nervous system.  Given enough time, the advantages of the centralized nervous
system should produce something with a brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Fermat's Last Theorum
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:41:08 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide


What's tantalizing about FLT is this fabled note that Fermat wrote before
he died saying that he found an "elegant proof."

There are two possibilities:

                  (a) he really found the proof, which is now lost
                  (b) he had a mental abberation and was mistaken

Out of curiosity, I was wondering whether the maths community today
generally regards (a) or (b) a being the most likely?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Geller
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:16:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.002938.2140@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>I remember reading years ago that Randi claimed to be able to reproduce all
>of Geller's tricks.
>
>The article said that the spoon bending can be done with the aid of a certain
>chemical, which you rub on to the spoon.
>
>The article never said what the chemical actually was and whether it is
>harmful or not to the skin. (Does Geller walk around with blisters on his
>fingers?:-)).

  I think that the article was putting you on.  I've heard various
speculations about various chemicals (such as rubbing mercury on a
silver spoon to get an amalgam which bends easily) but never anything 
which seemed sensible in terms of being able to be examined
afterwards (and to work on stainless steel spoons which are by far
the most common type found these days.)  Also, when Randi showed me
how to do this he didn't use any chemicals, just his hands and the
furniture.  (Plus excellent handling and misdirection.)

  Randi has written several books which should be available in
all college libraries either in the collections or via inter-library
loan.  Read a few, you'll probably enjoy learning more about Randi
and about the areas he's investigated.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ

P.S.  Many magic supply houses sell an item called a "key bender."
Does this remind you of another Geller specialty?
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:8165 alt.atheism:8524
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Does the Bible have any contradictions
Date: 16 Apr 1992 15:57:01 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

Someone asked me if there are any contradictions in the Bible, and I
could not answer.  Can anyone point out some to me (if, in fact, they
do exist)?  I'm looking for two different types of contradictions, the
first being far more important:

1.  A self-contradiction:  some fact described in one place in the Bible
is described in unambiguously different, mutually exclusive terms in another 
place in the Bible.

2.  A contradiction with empirical fact/science:  some fact about the
natural world is described in the Bible which is unambiguously contrary to 
modern scientific knowledge.

Thanks in advance, though it would seem that not many of these exist 
seeing as the Bible has been around for centuries.  Please try and
email me any answers you may have (no matter how long or short) because
I will be posting this to a lot of newsgroups (too many to review for
replies).  Thanks again...

Email address: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu

AAA
From: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: _The Mismeasure of Man_
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:08:06 GMT
Reply-To: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.

gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

>A fascinating book, but it does leave me with a question.  [Is there a
>net.reader out there who can put it to Gould and post his response?]
>I agree quite strongly with Dr. Gould that "intelligence" tests dont.
>I use as empirical evidence my scores on the GRE when I retook them
>recently.  Studying can seriusly affect the outcome of the exam,
>therefor, they do not measure "native intelligence".

>My question is this though: does Dr. Gould believe/suggest/imply that
>all people have the same mental potential at birth?  [I know that the
>pre-natal environment can affect this potential, but let's ignore that
>for now.]

I've also recently read the book.  Gould wrote somewhere in it that no
serious scientists who believe in the dominance of environment believe
that nature does not have an effect.   He argues (I think ) that 
"intelligence" is not a single thing.  This belief was promoted by many
people - including those who promoted IQ tests.

>Therefore, it seems that there IS some native, inheredited potential
>that is independent of environment.  And, since, as I claim that this
>inheredited potential must exist, is it possible to identify and
>measure it in some manner?
Why not several potentials?  IF the measurement could be done directly
on the physiochemical features of the brain - no problem?  But if the
measurements require tests then you have the problems of upbringing
to consider.  Not only the obvious one of poor children having less access
to books, zoos etc and the fact that some children might deliberately do
badly,
but there is also the problem of different people having different levels
of perserverance in solving problems, different levels of curiousity for 
certain subjects etc.  And these features can be effected by upbringing


>Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
>Field Robotics Center,          | all men are created equal, that they are
>Carnegie Mellon University      | endowed by their Creator with certain
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
              I don't think this is self-evident (it might be correct but
              I don't think it is self-evident) as it's yet to be proved 
              there is such a thing as 'The Creator'
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: I don't know
Reply-To: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:40:19 GMT


Dan:
}   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...

Dave:
Are you sure its not on the same hand? 
This fascinates me. I didn't know about the experimental verification
of intuition. What sort of plausible explanation do they give for it?
Has it crossed your mind that psi and intuition might be related?

Dan:
}} }indicate the current sensible assumption about psi is that it doesn't exist.

Dave:
}} It may be a sensible default assumption for you, but for me it isn't.

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

Dave:
I don't think that picking a default assumption based on saving time is
a method based in scientific rigor.
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolution and God
Keywords: Evolution,proof
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:59:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Apr7.133637.21999@bradford.ac.uk>,
K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) writes:

> 2) Popular science quotes evolution as a fact. I believe however that the
> relevant specialist divisions discuss the 'Theory of Evolution' as the
> best hypotheses that fits the observed facts. If pure science can not 
> conclusively prove anything then Evolution can not proven conclusively either.
> 
> 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.
>
> Kathy HH


Ooops! Your last comment forces me to post this, and set followups, to
talk.origins. I speak as an "intermediate form", by the way. :-)

Cheers

Simon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror, check yourself
for signs of collective identity" - Consolidated on "This Is Fascism"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Evolution and God
Keywords: Evolution,proof
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:04:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.071425.22593@cc.uow.edu.au> plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (David Plumpton) writes:
>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.
>
>>You believe wrong. The "absence of intermediate forms" is a chestnut
>>often trotted out in arguments against evolution. *All* life forms are
>>"intermediate" biology is replete with examples [two off the top of my
>>head, the R-complex in the human brain, and the appendix].
>
>>Lack of "proof" for evolutionary theory says more about the nature of
>>proof than the nature of the theory. Pick any theory for the origin of
>>species, figure out a way to prove it. Tricky eh?
>
>The absence of intermediate forms is *predicted* by evolution.  It's called
>Punctuated Equilibrium.  Species tend to stay relatively the same for ages,
>and then do a quick spurt of evolving when some environmental pressure comes
>to bear.

Even if punctated equilibrium isn't right, you still won't find the
intermediate forms the fundies want.

Me: 	We have forms A and B
Fundie:	I want an intermediate form between A and B
Me:	Okay.  We have A->C->B.  Happy?
Fundie:	Nope.  Where are the intermediate forms between A and C...
Me:	How about..
Fundie:	... and C and B?
Me:	Hold on, you can keep this up forever.  As soon as I provide
	A->D->C->E->B you now have 4 gaps that you can ask me to fill.
Fundie:	*Grin*
 
If you enjoy being flamed, bring this subject up in talk.origins and call
it proof against evolution.
 
>I       David Plumpton          I     There is a holy trinity:    |

C Frog
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Geller
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:29:38 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide


I remember reading years ago that Randi claimed to be able to reproduce all
of Geller's tricks.

The article said that the spoon bending can be done with the aid of a certain
chemical, which you rub on to the spoon.

The article never said what the chemical actually was and whether it is
harmful or not to the skin. (Does Geller walk around with blisters on his
fingers?:-)).

Does anyone know the details or have a better reference?


Just wonderin'.
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Wake of the Goddesses (OH NO!)
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:57:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <3735@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>I read an announcement of a book titled:
>In the Wake of the Goddesses.  Women, Culture, and the Biblical
>Transformation of Pagan Myth.
>
>by Tikva Frymer-Kensky
>(who is said to be a biblical scholar).
>
>From the announcement I gather that the author says that in the ancient
>Middle East (Sumer and Akkad) the "complex of antiwoman, anticarnal
>ideas" did not exist, and that this complex arose out of the confrontation
>of Israel with Greek civilization, and that it was inherited by
>Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
>
Well, I haven't heard anything about the book prior to this. I just
wanted to point out that she contradicts Leacock and others concerning
the origin of Badness (all that male-oriented stuff). According to
Leacock, Patriarchy originated in the ancient Middle East, and raidated
outward from there to Europe. Sumer was Badness; she writes of "The
classical patriarchy of the ancient Middle East." Whereas Frymer-Kensky's
demonology has Goodness in Sumer and Badness in Judaism. 

You can't tell the angels from the devils without a scorecard! But one
common feature of such theories is: all such 'female paradises' are
placed among cultures that did NOT survive, and especially among those
about which details of its social life are scarce, since all *known*
societies are patriarchal, anywhere in the world.

An interesting aside: given the contemporary vehemence of feminist
activists toward censoring and prohibiting ANYTHING having erotic
content (even private speech!), it strikes me as hilariously funny
to claim that a supposed woman-centered society would be "pro-carnal"!
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
       
                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968