HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aa387@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Kutz)
Subject: Letter from Randi on depositions.
Reply-To: aa387@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Kutz)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 09:44:54 GMT


    Message #87 (98 is last):
    Date: Mon Apr 13 04:22:00 1992
    From: geller-hotline%hotmomma@uunet.UU.NET (James Randi)
    Subject: Wednesday deposition...
    To: broadcast-geller-hotline%hotmomma@uunet.UU.NET
 
 
    I'll be arriving in NYC Tuesday to attend our deposition of Geller that
    starts Wednesday.  We've assembled a long list of authorities who have
    colorful opinions of UG's "powers," and a number of scientists who were
    actually deceived by him and are now aware of it.  The big question about
    all this is, when are Geller and his lawyers going to get real?  There is
    no way that I can see for him to win this case, and I'm a bit puzzled
    about why he thinks he can win.  My essay in this week's TIME magazine has
    already caused some excitement (I don't yet know if it showed up in the
    international edition) and I expect a lot of flack from it.  The Natural
    Law Party in the UK (the Mahareshi's political arm), I'm informed, did
    zero in the election.  Doug Henning, running in Blackpool, came in fourth
    in a group of four candidates.  Not bad.                       JR
 
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: I don't know.
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:05:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.092825@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
 
>   I disagree.  Skeptics _do not_ chuckle because "no psychic has won the 
>lottery using his or her powers".  They chuckle rather because if 1% of
>what psychics that occur in the media claim about their powers is true
>they should be able to win the lottery as often as they want.
 
>   Psi IS bogus.  Almost all claims made by alleged psionics are patently
>false.  The PEAR group may have uncovered something that could be called psi;
>their work is wildly unlike the standard, bombastic claims in the media.
>I refer you to the last sixty issues of the Skeptical Enquirer, should you
>desire references...

You keep talking about the media. Of course claims are bombastic in the
media. The media, by definition, is bombastic. They want to sell paper.
You can't be saying that all psi research until PEAR has dealt with
bombastic claims only?! Maybe the Skeptical Enquirer chooses only to deal
with the bombastic claims. These are much easier to disprove.

You don't know whether psi is bogus. There have been bogus claims about
psi, but that proves nothing. Don't confuse the two issues.

>> That is what I was doing... pointing out a bogus argument. That's all.
>
>   No, your imposing a straw man and then pointing out it is a straw man.

I understand what you are saying here. Sure, it is easy for me to say,
"How do you know that no one has used their psychic powers to win a lottery?"
I didn't supply any proof that a psychic had used psi to win the lottery.
But, no one has supplied proof that a psychic hasn't used their powers
to win the lottery either. Just because they can't supply such proof
doesn't make this fact any less important. Some questions cannot be
disproven. This is the nature of reality. 

This is why I have never
understood the atheistic viewpoint. There is no way an atheist could
have reached his viewpoint based on any real knowledge. The atheist's
viewpoint is based on a lack of knowledge (If I can't see it, it
doesn't exist). The only really correct viewpoint in this case is
agnostic (I don't know).
 
It is the nature of science to require proof before asserting something
as a fact. But, we cannot overgeneralize this principle to mean that if
you can't prove it, then we know it doesn't exist.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: NP-Hard problems
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:17:59 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <5560@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx>, pl160988@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
>A harder test for a psychic would be to find the solution of a
>non-computable problem, like the halting problem. Given an arbitrary
>program, to find whether it will eventually halt or not. I think this
>would be irrefutable proof of psychic ability, since *there is no way*
>to solve this problem in any known way.

Actually, if the program DOES halt, you can solve the problem.  And if the
program DOESN'T halt, how do you decide whether the "psychic" was right?  Ask
another psychic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: misc
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 17:07:50 GMT
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)

In article <1992Apr6.045504.7928@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

   The issue that has not been addressed is the STARTING of life, in a
   universe of increasing entropy. For this you have to postulate some
   sort of "bootstrapping" action.

   And it is very difficult to understand how the "bootstrapping" happens
   out of a chaotic primordal stew.

Derek,
Do you really enjoy flaunting your total ignorance in a number of
areas to the world, or are you so stupid that you don't even realize
that you are ignorant?

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The story of Jesus Christ appearing after
Field Robotics Center,          | he was dead is the story of an apparition,
Carnegie Mellon University      | such as timid imaginations can always
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | create in vision, and credulity believe.
(412) 268-3856                  | Stories of this kind had been told of the
                                | assassination of Julius Caesar...
The opinions expressed are mine | Thomas Paine
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson)
Subject: Re: Sensible interpretation of the unknown (was: I don't know).
Summary: A lack or two that isn't sensible 
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:41:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.092904@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.170554.7595@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>,
>kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>> You don't know whether psi is bogus. There have been bogus claims about
>> psi, but that proves nothing. Don't confuse the two issues.
>
>   Since you don't seem to accept the point I'll say it again.  PEAR is the
>very first example of psi-type research I've ever encountered that was not
>obviously bogus.  This in fifteen years of voracious reading of all sorts of
>material.  Psi is nonsensical by any reasonable measure.  The only way you can
>claim it isn't is by special pleading that psi should be judged by a much
>weaker standard than other phenomena.  Notice even PEAR called their work
>"conciousness related anaomalies" not "psi".
>
>   In particular psi lacks:
>
>   (i) Anything resembling a coherent theory.
>
>   (ii) Any form of application not explainable by other means.
>
>   (iii) A large body of replicable observations.

Obviously you can define "large" to make this claim true, but it is a
fact that academic and scientific researchers have generated several
bodies of replicable observations re "psi".  These have been assayed in a 
number of comprehensive reviews and meta-analyses during the past few years.  
I have discussed one of these (the Radin/Nelson paper in "Foundations of
Physics") in this forum.  All of them are summarized in an excellent
treatment of meta-analysis, power assessment, and replication in an
article by Utts in the journal "Statistical Science", Nov 91.
>
>   (iv) A council that maintains and enforces standards of quality and honesty.

Aside from the questionable implication that such a council exists for
any other research domain, it is a fact that parapsychologists have
indeed a formal declaration of principles that are relevant.  The
Parapsychological Association, which is the main research organization
and is the publisher of the Journal of Parapsychology, has a well
developed set of guidelines and standards for quality of research.  

They have to rely on the mafia for enforcement, though. :-)

One example of their policies that other sciences would do well to consider 
is the encouragement for publication of null, negative, "failed" research.
Another, that is presently pre-formal I think, is to encourage
publication of certain parameters or descriptors, such as effect sizes,
that help with interpretations but are not yet typical in any science
reporting standards.
 
Most of the rest deleted.

>Stay tuned, keep an open mind? yes!  Give psi one shred of creedence?  Not 
>yet (maybe this summer).  I invite you to hold your breath.

Not.

Roger N
From: haynes@apple.com (Charles Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Psychics in Casinos
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:36:15 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer

In article <1992Apr2.004846.635@ims.com>, chapman@ims.com (Dave Chapman) writes:
> 
> It seems to me that even a small population of psychics would quickly put all of
> the casinoes out of business. Oops, I forgot, the psychics own the casinoes.

You think Casinos "play fair" do you? They tend to be quite empirical. Winning
consistently is a priori evidence that you are cheating, and Nevada State Law
allows Nevada casinos to eject cheaters and blacklist them. They don't need to
show *how* you were cheating.

I assume similar mechanisms exist in other casinos. Perhaps less formal, but
still effective I'd bet.

	-- Charles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: I don't know
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:53:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.154019.16028@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>,
kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
> 
> 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?

   (Stepping squarely outside my own competence) As I am given to 
understand it most of the thinking a person does is preconcious.  I
also believe this to be the case because many of my best mathematical
results have come to me in the shower, or the middle of the night, when
I wasn't conciously thinking about math.

   The explaination, then, is that intuition is the result of subconcious
integration of knowledge combined with speculation that is passed along to the
concious at random times for not well understood reasons.  My intuition is
often wrong; sometimes it suceedes stunningly.  

> Has it crossed your mind that psi and intuition might be related?

   Yes.  I suspect much that is attributed to psi is actually normal brain
function of which a person is not aware.  Thus intuition is often mistaken 
for an external phenomena and gets called psi.

> 
> 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.

   Why not?  Science can't explain everything _tomorrow_.  A sensible attempt
to prioratize goals based on experience and intuition tends to maximize the 
rate at which new knowledge is aquired.

   This point has been raised repeatedly in this forum: it is not 
"scientific" to investigate everything.  You need an observation of some 
sort you are trying to explain or a prediction of some sort you are trying 
to make.  Otherwise you waste time, money, effort, equipment, etc. and your
grant doesn't get renewed.

   If we were all fabulously wealthy, I would advocate a huge research program
into the nature of psionics (I prefer settled questions) but we aren't.  I'm
perfectly happy to see Rodger Nelson's group chipping away in the current 
climate.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorum
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:35:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.004108.2697@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> 
  dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>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
or
                   (c) he was perfectly sane, but like so many other
                       mathematicians before and after him, he made a
                       mistake
                   (d) he was lying

>Out of curiosity, I was wondering whether the maths community today
>generally regards (a) or (b) a being the most likely?

I believe the consensus is that if a simple proof exists, it would have
been found by now.  Fermat probably had a proof he thought was good but
was in fact not. 

C Frog
---
I have a solution, but this .sig is too small to hold it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Why psychics don't win Lotto
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:08:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.222745.22985@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>,
kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
> In article <GERRY.92Apr2111601@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
writes:
> >In article <1992Apr1.182038.25152@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>  
>}   I just got finished reading a post that stated,
>}   "And, needless to say, it will never happen." , refering to the
>}   possibility that someone might use psychic abilities to win the lottery.
>}   We really don't know if this is possible. The existence of psi is still
>}   being debated in science.
>  
>>You should learn to read.  Anyone can, after winning a lotto, claim to
>>have used psychic powers to have enabled them to determine the number
>>a priori.  what I stated was that no one will be able to win some
>>number of successive lottos.
> 
> Ok, you are right. I misstated what I read.
> But still, how do you know that this will not happen? You don't.
> 
> I personally think that there isn't a psychic good enough to do it.
> Psychic powers tend to demonstrate themselves at lower levels of
> intensity then what people are asking for here.
> This is my opinion, but I could be proved wrong.
> 
> >By the way, is it possible that giant, pink, vacuum sucking, inter-
> >galactic, bunny rabits exist?  WHAT?  You deny it?  Geez, this one is
> >still being debated in science...
> 
> I would never deny something like this, because I don't know.
> 
> Come on you skeptics, is it that hard to say.. "I don't know."


   Come on Dave, _I_ personally said I didn't know (about the existence of)
God, Free Will, (the truth of) the Riemann Hypothisis, the Goldbach Conjecture,
(the veracity of) personal anecdotes from San Diego and Boca Raton in the last
month.

   I also state _for the record_ that I do not know if there are forces beyond
the standard ones or peculiar manefestations of the standard forces; its just
that precognition has terrible evidence compared to many far less plausible
theories like evolution or the big bang.

   If someone rendered me tabula rosa I'd find precognition far easier to
believe than evolution or the big bang.  It's cute and all for you to attempt
to steal the skeptic's thunder (being willing to say I don't know), but you
already went on record as believing that careful testing is a mere
technicallity (or some such) and that personal experience is the true path to
knowledge.

   In your case its more like "I refuse to know what is available to know". 
Look at what you're saying; that we can't tell that psychics don't get modest
help with the lottery from their powers.  What value is such a statement?  You
squarely ignored the point about the giant, pink, ..., bunny rabbits which is
key.

                               Look, ma! No rapier wit!

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Guiness Book and ESP
Organization: University of Central Florida
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:35:16 GMT

While I was growing up we had a copy of the Guinness
Book of World Records that had a listing under "Best
Psychic" or something that credited some guy with
being able to guess cards at levels way above chance.
Does anyone know who this was, and what was the story
on his getting removed from Guinness?  (He's not in
the newest edition).

Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Nazca "Airfields"?
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:08:29 EST

In article <1992Apr8.093700.8306@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> 	A curious thought occurs to me about the Nazca "airfields".
> They don't look much like "real" airfields. 
You don't need real airfields for nonreal  airplanes.
> Every one that I have ever
> seen has at least one paved runway with a paved parking area nearby.
> The usual surface, at least for American commercial airports, is
> concrete. There are usually also markings on all these surfaces to
> help the pilot out, such as a centerline on the runway. There is
> almost always additional equipment, such as runway lights and radar
> sets, not to mention a control tower. Where is all this equipment?
Because the airplanes were coming in from so far out, they used the Ley lines
in Britain and Stonehenge to line up their approach.
> 
> 	And why aren't there any tire prints from the supposed
> aircraft? There are certainly tire prints from various present-day
> vehicles there. The pavements of airports are designed for the great
> weights of some present-day airliners; can you imagine the ruts that a
> 747 would create in the Nazca valley soil?
Actually the landing gear were just as wide as the widest stone free area. 
They used one really big wheel.  Made of wood.
> 
> 	Has anyone done a serious study of the possibilities for
> finding extraterrestrial artifacts, or even an extraterrestrial base,
> on the Earth? A good candidate might be inside a mountain. That way,
> it will have natural concealment :-). Access to the outside would have
> to be by way of tunnels. A power source would require a heat sink, and
> probably a heat source; being near the ocean is a good way to insure
> the former need. The latter can be made available from being in a
> geologically active area; geothermal energy is essentially renewable.
> But being in a geologically active area has one side effect: the
> possibility of earthquakes or even volcanic eruptions. One might get
> around that side effect of close-up heat by drilling several
> kilometers downward.

Solved problem.  The UFO base was moved to Mt Shasta in California, and the
UFO's now follow the magneto-psycho-newageo-energy emanating from the LA basin
as their outer marker.  Because they now use a more advanced version of a
microwave landing system, provided by those paragons of Higher Power
engineering, the Pleidians, from their seven star system, they are able to
approach through any of three flight corridors, over Easter Island, Macchu
Picchu, or the Bermuda Triangle.

Hope this answers any questions you may have on this issue.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee)
Subject: Re: Why psychics don't win the lottery
Organization: Uni Computing Service, Uni of Sydney, Australia
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:25:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.192359.19636@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>In article <92097.134432RZANDBER@ESOC.BITNET>, RZANDBER@ESOC.BITNET (Rene Zandbergen) writes:
>|> This is why:
>|> Say I'm a psychic (which I'm not). I am at one of these places where
>|> they sell lottery tickets. I ask for one and am presented with a number
>|> which, as I immediately realise, will not yield a prize.
>|> So I don't buy the ticket. (And I save some money which a non-psychic
>|> would have lost).
>
>Many lotteries (if not most) allow the sucker (I mean customer) to
>select his (her) own number.  This is why, when the potential payoff
>gets really big, it is possible that the expected return from playing
>rarely selected numbers can get greater than cost.  A NZ (or was it
>Aussie) syndicate recently bought out a lottery in that way (they
>bought one of every possible combination of numbers).

It was possible to lose for the investors.  If one of the combinations
did not have the expected payout then Money Invested > Payout.

Acutally, the organisers of the scheme may be considered to have psychic
powers as they knew _they_ couldn't lose.  The lottery entries were
organised by a couple, and people paid an amount of money for shares
in their company.  Money from the share sales was used to purchase numbers
in the lottery in the USA.  Note that not all the money invested was
used to purchase numbers.  All is well for investors because they did win,
but if they did not some might be asking questions.  The originators of
the company did not spend all the money, and therefore there would have
been some equity in the company if it didn't win.  The problem may be
that the control of the company probably still lies in the hands of the
original directors, and that apart from being shareholders, the investors
may not have any other say in the disposition of the money. The
remuneration of the directors depends on who has control of the company
and how much they decide to pay.  From memory of a TV "investigative"
report on this scheme, the man who organised the sheme claimed to get
nothing if they didn't win (and a "commission" if they did - and they did)
and to have no connection with the company, although his wife was a director
and shareholder in the company.

All in all, there is opportunity in this type of scheme for the originators
of this scheme to make money no matter whether the lottery is won or not.
Illegal? Unlikely.  Immoral? Maybe.

>J. Giles

Bill Lee