HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: CPT violations (was: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.)
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:43:44 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug31.174528.12432@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes...
>In article <25867@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>|> 
>|> All physics is not time symmetric.  You really should check with a physicist
>|> before making claims about physics.  T violation, a.k.a. CP violation is a
>|> well-known phenomenon.  The underlying mechanism is not yet understood - it
>|> is one of the hottest topics in high-energy physics today.   You can look
>|> up processes in any particle physics book which do not have the same 
>|> probability under time reversal.  Neat, huh?
> 
>Yes, I know about this symmetry breaking.  But, since it was irrelevant
>to the second law question, I left it out (actually, I mentioned it
>parenthetically under the misc parity swaps - *one* of which I mentioned
>explicitly - the word `like' doesn't deny other changes: in fact, it implies
>that there *are* others).  It is not clear that CPT symmetry breaking is
>related to thermodynamic entropy at all.

Once again, I think you are very confused.  there is no known CPT symmetry
violation, and in fact it would require bending over backwards to even construct
a lagrangian without CPT symmetry.  CP (and T as a consequence) *is* violated by
kaons and probably by B mesons as well, at measurable levels. 

You made the statement that "All known physics is time symmetric."  This,
as I have said, is patently false, whether you said it parenthetically or not.

Sci.skeptic is not the best forum to address these issues.  If you are
still interested, I recommend Emilio Segre's "Nuclei and Particles."  

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:18:22 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Sep1.191555.7097@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>Then what the hell are you doing arguing for creationism in
>sci.skeptic?  

As has been pointed out by others, I was "arguing" in talk.origins.  I
didn't start the cross-posting (which I deleted for this post).

I've promised to let this thread die out it t.o, but I guess I didn't
promise not to post to sci.skeptic. ;-)

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Transactional Analysis
Keywords: Psychology, Transactional Analysis
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:39:53 GMT

In article <59907@mimsy.umd.edu>, biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes in part:
|> From some readings of skeptical books and publications, it seems
|> that much of Freud's work was quite incompetent. The term "quackery" 
|> comes to mind. In no sense did the man use anything like a scientific
|> method. All that can be said is that his methods were an improvement
|> on much that came before.

I consider anyone that follows Freudian stuff today to be a quack.
This does not make Freud a quack or incompetent.  Please something about
Freud's work in its historical context before declaring it to be trash.  
He definitly DID use scientific data, although he theorized well beyond 
what could be well supported.  Do you know any clinicians that DON'T
theorize well beyond what is fully known?

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15742 talk.origins:10641
From: fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:53:45 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <Bts2FL.E98@world.std.com>, believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
> How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
> Pagan teaching from our schools? The fight against evolutionism
> must be an essential component of the fight for our families and
> this country.
> 
> We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
> Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
> to our faith and therefore our very existance.
> 
> -- 
>   |                     In God We Trust                            |
> --+--                                                            --+--
>   |                                                                |
>   |                                                                |

Amen. 

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will
turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Tim 4:3-4

Yours is Christ Jesus,
Anthony Faull
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "How can a young man keep his way pure?
          By living according to your word."  - Psalm 119:9
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:28:04 +1000

Wednesday August 19 1992, James J. Lippard writes to All:

jds>> It classifies bats as flying things, because it calls a bat an "Oif"
jds>> (in Hebrew). Since we know that that bats aren't birds, an "Oif" must
jds>> be a flying thing, excluding insects. This is a bit of a circular
jds>> issue: you say bats aren't birds and that the Bible shouldn't say
jds>> they are. I agree, and say that since bats aren't birds the Bible
jds>> *doesn't* say they are.

JJL> If this is correct, why is it translated as "birds" and not "flying
JJL> things"? (I've checked KJV, RSV, NASB.)  Surely all these committees
JJL> of translators would not have screwed up something so simple?

1) They were ignorant of the division between bats and birds.

2) They wanted to make you paranoid.

3) They thought the translation was quite good enough; that it neatly excluded
insects from this heading so that they could be dealt with under "swarming
things"; that in any case bats were mentioned explicitly and that it kept the
translation clean and readble, as it substituted a single word in translation
for a single word of the original.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15786 alt.paranormal:2196 sci.misc:1558 alt.astrology:1572
From: toby@cs.man.ac.uk (Toby Howard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,uk.events,alt.paranormal,sci.misc,alt.astrology
Subject: THE NON-PSYCHIC PSYCHIC SUPERSHOW!!
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:53:56 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester


A COMPLETE GUIDED TOUR OF THE TRICKS OF THE PSYCHIC TRADE!

Spoon bending, psychic surgery, mind over matter, fortune-telling,
mind-reading and other amazing stuff, faultlessly performed and then
thoroughly explained! Come and see RICHARD MATHER, the country's
leading authority on 'psychic' deception, reveal the methods which can
be used to deliver 100% guaranteed genuine (well, not quite) psychic
miracles to order. 

A thoroughly entertaining show, to which all are welcome. This is
Richard Mather's first show in London, and his first ever to include a
demonstration of 'psychic' surgery (perfectly harmless when you know
how). A complete guided tour of the tricks of the psychic trade!

DETAILS: Saturday 5 September 1992, 7.30pm.
         Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R
         Tickets on the door: 4 pounds.

         Journalists, researchers and producers 
         admitted free by prior arrangement. 

For further information contact:
         Ian Rowland (Tel 081 664 6378) or
         Mike Hutchinson (Tel 081 508 2989)
--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Howard    Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
Lecturer               Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
                                                   Tel: +44 61-275-6274
toby@cs.man.ac.uk                                  Fax: +44 61-275-6236
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:05:04 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1302@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|
|Is the universe old enough for life to have evolved to its current
|state here on Earth ...?

Absolutely!  More than enough.   In fact one of the questions biologists
have been dealing with in the last few decades is
'why is evolution so *slow*?'

This is part of the reaon for the theory of punctuated equilibria, it explains
the slowness (in part).

| I don't see how the first
|few pages from the Bible contradict evolution.

However, I agree with this, in the sense that, properly viewed those pages
are not intended to be viewed literally.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Organization: RL
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 14:44:41 GMT

In article <27AUG199210063281@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.030619.8047@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes...
...
>>the traditional binary logic system, of TRUE and FALSE, that evolved
>>from the ancient Greeks has to be the only way?

"Imagination and no learning is like wings and no feet." 
or
"A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep from the Pyrrian Spring or not at all
For shallow drafts intoxicate the brain
While drinking largely sobers us again." (or something like that.)

>
>It's not.
>
>>Would it make sense to invent a new multivalued logic, to open up...
>
>It's been done, books and articles have been written on it.  Jan
>Lukasiewicz was the first to construct a three-valued logic, I
>believe (true, false, indeterminate).  Now there's also fuzzy
>logic, which has an infinite number of truth values (real numbers
>from 0 to 1).

An infinity of integer values is the same.  Logic base googleplex? 8^)
Of course, this can always be reduced to binary, and we're right back
where we started. 8^(. 

>
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona

-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:17:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.150126.11508@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.023331.10274@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
writes:
> >To:  Drew Lawson 
> >
> >
> >>>I find rocks which look like bones.  When they are put together, they
> >>>don't resemble anything known to be alive.  Is it valid to conclude
> >>>that this creature realy once existed as a living beingi?
> >
> >  You really do burlesque the scientific method, don't you?
> 
> [deleted]
> 
> >  And, it must be pointed out, my little one-sentence summary is almost
> >as bad a burlesque of actual science as yours is.  We're got MUCH better
> >evidence than that. 
> 
> 
> I apologize if my phrasing was taken to oversimplify your method or
> evidence.  That was not the intent.  However, I have neither the space
> nor the vocabulary to state it in such a way that there will be nothing
> for you to complain about.
> 
> The question still stands:  Is this a valid conclusion?
> 
> I should also note, before anyone responds to this post, that the above
> quoted post by me was an example within a larger topic.  That
> metaphysical topic was:  Does physical evidence provide a source of
> truth?

	Do you have another method of providing truth?  Or maybe there is no
physical reality and this is all the dream of Shiva.

> I don't really expect an answer to that question.  It was posted as my
> view of the (an) issue at the root of the disagreement between those
> who accept evolutionary origin and those who reject it.
> 
> 
> I still have a problem understanding how anyone can claim to _know_
> what happened 500,000 years ago.

	How do you know JFK was shot in 1963?  How do you know WWI really 
happened?  How do you know the holocaust really happened in WWII?  Is what you
are asking is a metaphysical question about the nature of 'truth' and 'know-
ledge', which science doesn't even try to answer.  However, if there is a
physical world, it acts like its under the control of some very well understood
physical laws which say that the earth is 4Gyr old.  If physical evidence
does not provide proof, then the bible means NOTHING, because there is no way
to know when it was written or by who -- in other words, it's an irrelevant
document.

 
> -- 
> Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
> lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

				   I'm the solvent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:15:00 GMT

In <1992Aug28.133410@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:

>	In short, further communication with you is a waste of time because
>you have rejected communication with the world as a means of acquiring 
>knowledge.

I tend to agree, Drew is here because from his side of the fence,
he sees lost souls that need saving. His friend has told him so. 

From my side of the fence, I see a guy that talks nightly to an
invisible friend.  This friend provides him with all of his "wisdom".

How can we a have a logical and rational discussion, when Drew is 
using the word of an invisible friend, as points of discussion?

Even worse: When cornered, Drew claims 
	"My freind did that." 
	"He can do anything."
 	"He even made it look like he didn't do it"
	"But he didn't intend to make it look like he didn't do it"

Vern Nelson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Organization: just me
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 12:51:56 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Aug27.050110.21622@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>
>I have seen a couple of comments in posts which I find baffling:
>Essentially, they claim that the theory of evolution does not 
>interfere or conflict with the concept of God.
>
>Would one of you guys like to explain how evolution and God can co-exist?
>
>All life on this planet can only have a single point of origin.
>The process by which the very first cell was created.
>What created that cell: God or evolution?
>
>Repeat the same question for all stages of life moving from
>single celled life to our present form.
>What caused that change : God or evolution?
>
>If you answer god for any stage, then it could be god for
>all of the stages, and you believe in creation, not evolution.
>
>If you answered evolution for any stages, then you are implying
>that a single stage can be modified without gods assistance, 
>Any stage could be likewise modified without assistance.
>Therefore, you believe in evolution, not creation.
>
>You cannot answer god for some stages, and evolution for others.
>I have 2 cats, a siamese and a persian. You cannot say god
>created the siamese, and the persian evolved from a lower species.

What you've missed here is that, with the God creation bit, the assumption
is that God created *everything* - life, the universe and all that.  Thus,
God could have created the *process* of evolution, to allow things to develop
without its intervention.  Thus, if you believe that God could have created
anything, you can say "Well, it created everything 6000 years ago, and they've
been evolving ever since" and no one could gainsay it.

In essence, the comparison is poor, because evolution is a theory to explain
veriations in life forms, whereas creationism is a "factual", no doubt allowed
explanation of everything that exists.  See the difference?
>
>Vern Nelson
>

	David Pipes
robear@digex.com
From: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:06:04 GMT
Reply-To: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <714642841.F00006@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>MK> No, it classifies them as birds, not "flying things."  Aside from

>It uses a word to describe them which has been translated as "birds". When we
>say "bird" we mean things of avian ancestry; when people who spoke ancient
>Hebrew said "bird" ("Oif", in AH) they meant things of avian ancestry plus bats,
>although they wouldn't have categorised it that way. This is just a petty point
>of terminology: you're trying to impose your definition of your own word upon
>someone else's definition of another word.

Then I am forced to repeat the question, "Why is 'oif' translated by so
many different people as 'bird' if it doesn't mean 'bird?'"  If all of
these translators are so lazy or sloppy as to use "bird" in place of a
word that (supposedly) so clearly means more than birds, should we trust
_any_ part of their translations?  If they can mangle something with an
obvious meaning by saying "birds" instead of "flying things," just imagine
what kind of a mess they could make out of the parts that are less easily
understood.

>Come to think of it, even the early Bible translators would have used "bird" to
>include bats. I don't think it was until the 1600s that proper classification
>was done. I seem to recall that three creatures could not be hunted by English
>commoners because they were Fish Royal. These were the Swan, the Sturgeon, and
>the Whale. Of course, only one of these is really a fish. This just indicates
>how language has changed.

So what you're saying is that the Bible is right to call bats birds, and
whoever called swans and whales "royal fish" was correct, because in both
cases a good classification system was not in place?  Was Ptolemy correct
with his archaic model of the solar system, because the math and physics
of his time were inadequate to the task of making a proper model?

You're not telling us that the Bible isn't wrong; you're telling us _why_
it's wrong.

>MK> Ah.  When your argument is shown to be wrong, redefine words so they
>MK> mean something else.  Chewing cud does not mean to eat one's own
>MK> feces.  If someone said they saw a person driving away in a car, would
>MK> that be "similar enough" to the truth if the person had actually
>MK> driven away on a motorcycle?
>
>If they were speaking ancient Hebrew which lacked many words for vehicles, they
>would probably have been forced to use the word "Merkova" - chariot. Someone
>might then have come along and translated chariot into its contemporary form -
>car. You could then point it that it was, indeed, a motorcycle. By doing so you
>would have proven only that words shift in meaning and that it's hard to do
>accurate translations while retaining the structure of the source text.

Is your argument then that ancient Hebrew lacked the necessary elements
to express "eating one's own feces?"  


michael@cs.umass.edu
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:35:51 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 963@tdat.teradata.COM, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.202739.12738@lsil.com> gascan@dcst16.dc writes:
>|In article 12915@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>|
>|... the aspect of science that Creationists have the most trouble with is the 
>|uncertainty.  They are so wrapped up in Revealed Truth that they can't
>|conceive of an attitude (the scientific one) which would gladly trash all
>|it's most cherished truisms and happily accept new ones at the drop of a hat,
>|IF the old ways were positively proved false.
>
>While I agree with the basic point you are trying to make (that Creationists
>are scared of uncertainty), I think a small dose of reality is called for.
>
>Scientists are human beings, with egos, and insecurities, and all of the other
>basic human reactions.  So, in reality, a cherished theory is likely to be
>a tad bit harder to unseat than some other one.  Some scientific professionals
>may even let their insecurities rule them almost as much as the Creationists
>do.
>
>Luckily, the scientific approach is patient, and wins out in the long run.
>In fact that is why it was desiged the way it was, to eventually put the
>evidence in the driver's seat.
>-- 
>sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>  or
>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Agreed, however I was speaking of an idealized "attitude" and not of any particular
(probably falable) individual.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15122 alt.alien.visitors:6168 talk.religion.newage:4091