HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca (Mischa Sandberg)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 23 Aug 92 06:21:56 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Robert McGrath writes:
> In article <phil.714222145@adam.adelaide.edu.au>, phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au
> (Phil Kernick) writes in part:
> |> >They don't have the intelligence
> |> >to work out that the concept of IQ is completely flawed and meaningless.
> |> Really?  I'm in Mensa and I know that ability to do IQ tests correllates
> |> well with ability to do IQ tests.  Ie, the more you do the better you get.
> Is this supposed to be a contradiction?  Something that correlates
> with itself is pretty meaningless.

Robert, Phil is 100% correct. And something that correlates with itself
is not meaningless --- not even the correlation is meaningless :-).
It does mean that if I have done well in IQ tests, I'm likely to do well
in future IQ tests, permanent brain damage from Mensa socials notwithstanding.

On the other hand, IQ can correlate with other abilities, like the
ability to tell when a thread is becoming tedious, if not completely
out of place.
Perhaps more relevant to the here-and-now are the attempts to "prove"
racial or gender differences in IQ, based on such wonderful stuff and
nonsense as craniometry --- just when we all thought Cyril Burt had been
laughed out of the world of research. Given that:
- IQ is a pretty dippy measure of creativity/insight/ratiocination
        to begin with
- links between IQ and brain size just don't exist. There are even a few
        individuals who are *virtually anacephalic* who have normal
        or better apparent intelligence (see the British program
        of a few years ago, call "Do You Need A Brain").
- correlation between brain size and body size has always dominated
        any other correlation, utterly
... it still gives me a run through a range of emotions, from horror
to amusement, to hear as I did recently of yet another "unbiased
researcher" proclaiming that Orientals are smarter than non-orientals
because they have larger brains; or that fellow of about ten years ago
who distinguished the "smart" blacks from North Africa versus the
"dumb" blacks of Southern Africa, on again specious grounds of brain
size, not to mention other peculiar subjective measures.

Now THAT's worth arguing about.

--
Mischa Sandberg ... Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca
                 or uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Mischa_Sandberg
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Engineers think equations are an approximation of reality.
Physicists think reality is an approximation of the equations.
Mathematicians never make the connection.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: p257shu@fs1.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Susanne Huettemeister)
Subject: Background info on "Fatima Sun Miracle" (1917) needed
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut f"ur Radioastronomie
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:43:01 GMT

Who can shed some light on the mysterious events said to have happened
on 13 October 1917 in Fatima (Portugal)?

We've received a number of queries by someone who doesn't believe
in a religious "miracle" explanation, but who's also unwilling to
dismiss everything as mass hysteria. This person is looking for
a scientific explanation and hasn't been able to find one so far.
His favourite hypothesis involves ball lightning...

Any ideas anybody...?
From: brian@audiofax.com (Brian Troxell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: aids started by cia?
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:34:19 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Aug18.052013.27077@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:
>djsrmi@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (John Sadowsky x6211) writes:
>:       They just want you to think that it is caused by a virus!
>:                             ^^^^^
>
>what the hell does that mean? Or is it just paranoia?
>
>Of course it's caused by viri. Don't insult the memory those who have died from
>this terrible disease by bringing down to the level of half-assed
>armchair revolution. And check your facts before engaging your keyboard.

Wow.

I think Diarmuid is now _way_ in front of the pack for the 1992 "There's
No Joke So Obvious That I Can't Take It Seriously" Award.

Chill out, okay?


-- 
|~~\ rian        2000 Powers Fy Rd. |  "In all systems of theology the devil
|--< _____       Suite 200          | 	  figures as '_Mr._ Tro*.' 
|__/   |         Marietta, Ga 30067 |  -Mutlu, talking about me. 
       | roxell  (404)933-7600      |   No, I don't understand it, either. 
From: gt@hpfcbig.SDE.HP.COM (George Tatge)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:38:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Autistic children and Prime Time live
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

>You're right.  But what *does* cast doubt is the ability of autistic children
>using this technique to happily type away *while looking away from the keyboard
>and screen*.  The parent, of course, is looking intently at the screen and
>keyboard and holding on to the child's hand (or, in at least some of the
>cases on the PrimeTime Live show, holding onto a single finger).
>   Looks like a human/keyboard Ouija board, to me.  The most obvious thing
>to do would be to prevent the parent from looking at the screen or keyboard.

Yes, that does cast some doubt but, as you imply, is not conclusive.  
Sensory isolation of the parent would be one good test.  Also, a 
mechanical stabilizer could be devised (but this would be a one way
test, ie. it could prove that they CAN communicate but would be
inconclusive proving that they can't) to take the place of the
parent's hand.

Again, I think these kids deserve a fair chance rather than just
completely dismissing it because it is suspicious.

My first hand experience with autism is limited to one year of living
in a household with an autistic boy who was 11 years old.  Based on
that one data point I am ambivalent about these claims.  I do know
that Frankie was capable of understanding me at times.  I also believe
he made efforts to communicate but cannot recall any actual successful
attempts at communication.

gt

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:23:34 GMT

>>done the above experiment, somewhat modified, in a double blind manner.

>Please describe for us a single, repeatable experiment that will allow
>us to "test" something meaningful using AK. If possible, I'd like an experiment
>that involves "pulling down the arm" when it is extended straight out,
>palm down. I'd like to do some 'muscle testing'.

Do you think that you can do these tests without training?  If so, there's lots
of books out.  Its simply not that simple.  Then there is the matter of 
interpreting the results.  People go to school and receives long hours of
training to do tests and many more hours (weeks, years) to learn how to 
interpret them.  It doesn't matter whether or not its for AK or for different
medical tests by by/for physicians.  In spite of their apparent objectivity,
medical tests are misinterpreted all of the time.  Good AK does not simply
rely on one test but all the results obtained by all of the tests and the 
practitioner's interaction'w with his/her client.  

If you want to learn, take some classes.


-- 
Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
				 *Aristotle				      *
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 23:56:01 +1000

Friday August 07 1992, Bob Beauchaine writes to (crosspost 2) All:

BB>   Well, context or not, how many legs does a grasshopper have?  The
BB>   ones in my back yard have six, the Bible says four (in Leviticus
BB>   under the food laws).  I await your context sensitive explanation
BB>   of how this only appears to be a contradiction.

Ones in my backyard have four. Two wings, four legs, two graspy things, like a
preying mantis.

Really, Bob, do you think the people contemporary with the Bible who *ate* these
insects were incapable of counting? Do you think nobody sat down and noticed
that insects tend to have six legs? In any event, it seems a very accurate
description: they go on all fours, and they have jointed "legs"
above their "feet"; that is, they have a pair of limbs above the ones on which
they stand.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
From: gt@hpfcbig.SDE.HP.COM (George Tatge)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:22:41 GMT
Subject: Crop Circle Explanations?
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

I've only been reading sci.skeptic for a few months so I would guess
that this topic has been run into the ground.  If so, can somebody
point me to the FAQ's?

This weekend I saw a network special on crop circles.  The only thing
that was clear to me from this is that nobody has offered a plausible
explanation yet.  Anybody here heard of one?

g (whatever the explanation, the feat itself is impressive) t
From: Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca (Mischa Sandberg)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - what's the big deal?
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:54:50 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Sorry if I joined this thread late, but it seems to be going down a
weird track. "Kinesiology" is a program at my alma mater (U.of Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada) that studies the mechanics of the human body,
with a strong direction toward phys rehab and sports medicine.
It was the program for thinking jocks, so to speak.

This is clearly not what is being discussed here. Since I've met a
Kin major from another university (WSU?), one has to wonder, when
was this term hijacked by the New Agers?

--
Mischa Sandberg ... Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca
                 or uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Mischa_Sandberg
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Engineers think equations are an approximation of reality.
Physicists think reality is an approximation of the equations.
Mathematicians never make the connection.
From: jgh1+@pitt.edu (John G Hardie)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Autistic children and Prime Time live
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:50:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


I'll reserve judgement on this until some decent testing has been
done - but I really didn't like the 'expert' who stated something like
'well, we dont want to test this cuz it will upset the children'.
If they're as intelligent as they are supposed to be I doubt that they'd
be upset by a fair test.

Nor do fair tests have to be intrusive.  It should be fairly easy
to set up a situation in which there is an adult present to support the
child's hand, but the adult is prevented from seeing the keyboard and
from hearing the questions put to the children.  (some sort of
blindfold and headphones I guess).  This test seems obvious to me and
I really wonder why it wasn't done.

John
-- 
jgh1@vm1.cis.pitt.edu

	Give me chastity and continency, but do not give them yet.
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Barbara Thiering's "Jesus the man". Any comments?
Keywords: Jesus. Dead sea scrolls.
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:38:09 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <391@bsovax.UUCP> albert@bsovax.UUCP (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>
>Are these legitimate scientific conclusions? Sensational rendering
>of a newspaper from a scientific conclusions? Crackpot science?
>Is the book worth reading at all?
>Comments any one?

Crackpot.

Jesus didn't exist.
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: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 17:10:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.145344.2119@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <536@texbell.sbc.com> lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery
(214+464-1049)) writes:
> >
> >        On the subject of God creating an Earth with the appearance
> >       of age; I do not buy this for a moment. However, might we
> >       consider the following?
> >        Could the Earth look old to we humans because our methods
> >       for determining age are flawed?
> 
> There is an old semi-philosophical saying which states:
> 
>   It is hard to see the picture from inside the frame.
> 
> While the current methods of science are impressive, we simply don't
> know what else there might be.

	Science is based on what we observe in the world around us.  If I can't
see it (hear it, smell it, ...) I'm not going to worry about what else may be 
there.  If you want to have faith in a god, fine with me.  That is something
beyond the boundaries of science.  If you claim your god created the earth, you
are talking about an observable thing (the earth) with measurable properties 
and we are now in the realm of science.
 
> Curiosity:  What scientific evidence would indicate that the Earth was
>             created recently?
> 
> I suspect that nothing would suffice because the concept of coming into
> existence is too wierd from a scientific point of view.

	'Too weird' is hardly an adequate description.  If you have a theory
about why what we observe in the world around us ( == old world, life produced
by some form of abiogenesis, changed via natural selection, mutation, ... ) 
is/should differ from what REALLY happened -- where some people claim to have
a magic insight into the TRUTH -- please let us know.  Then I can burn my
calculator and test tubes and go mutter under a tree for the rest of my life.
 
> -- 
> Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
> lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate


"Please pass the ketchup, I think it's going to rain"
-- Daffy Duck

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Big Al's loyalty test.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 03:09:28 GMT


"Oh, no, now he's gonna tell us we're all commies?" You say? "That does
it, now I'm gonna put him in my kill file!"   Well, Ha!  Seein as I
*believe* in the ideals of scientific reasearch (summed up in "don't know
what the answer is till *after* you ask the question.") You can kill me
all you want, I won't call you a commie until *after* you take the test!

So, without further ado, here is Big Al's loyalty test, Part I: loyalty:

1) Are you loyal?

2) If so, to whom?

3) Why did you choose them?  [Note: when giving this test orally, you must
ask this question as though the testee had just announced the was going to
back twelve cockaroches in the next super bowl]

Part II: Paranoia:

4) Do you believe that Armand Hammer is good for removing bad smells from
your refrigerator?  Or do you prefer to remove the food *before* it rots?

5) What did Lee Harvey Oswald have for lunch on october 27, 1959?

4) Do you believe that the Great Pumkin and the Tooth fairy are conspiring
against the kiddie toothpaste industry?

7) Who is that looking over your shoulder?

Part III: Misc.:

8) Do you believe in Dog?  If not, what are those milk-bones by your bed
for?

9) How am I doing so far?

10) If a train left New York going a hundred miles an hour, and another
train left L.A. going a hundred and fifty miles an hour, and they crashed
on the border of wyoming
a) some fast trains, huh?
b) where would they bury the survivors?
c) who was the engineer's mother?

Part IV: Scoring:

Score one for each "maybe."

multiply that number by Pi.

Divide by e.

make your computer generate a random number by applying twenty newtons of
force to the side of your computer.  Choose the number you like more.

Figure your adjusted score by writing the number you picked slantwise on a
piece of paper, then adjusting the paper until it looks right.

Send this number in to the beaureau of weights and measures.  Tell them
it's your bra size.

If you scored:

0-12.129362:  You are an underachiever.

12-238363:  You are an overachiever.

42  You are loyal.

43:  You are disloyal.

34:  You are dislexically disloyal.

142:  You are loyal, but to the wrong people.
 
Big Al. (Ooh, by the way, :~)) Invoking Abrhams, Zucker, and Zucker.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14354 talk.origins:9515
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:52:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>Once again, Jim flees headlong from the slightest appearance of logic. Jim, 
>when you call someone a Muslim, do you first check and make sure they
>have all of the virtues that the Koran extolls?

That was logic? Sigh.

If someone refers to themself as a follower of something, yet fails 
to practice the teaching of that same thing, *that* is a hypocrite,
and *that* is *part* of the issue here. Another part of the issue
is people such as *yourself* that cannot see the simple logic it takes
to deduce these facts. People such as *yourself* who instigate crap 
similar to what you've done here. People such as *yourself* who argue
merely for the sake of arguing. People such as *yourself*... well, 
anything further and I would be guilty of the same behaviour as 
*yourself.*

>No?

Nope.

>Then you are a hypocrite.

If that is how you define hypocrite I suggest you purchase a dictionary. 

You have taken up enough of my time,

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14292 talk.origins:9483
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:21:55 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:
>I really hate to quote screenfuls of stuff to add a few lines at the
>end, so I'll put my comments up here, and do my best trim the rest down
>to the bare essentials...

>Jim Loucks, you are completely missing Dan's point. 

Maybe Dan, and for that matter, you missed *my* point.

>Dan chose to illustrate this contradiction by describing one who creates
>the world _with_the_appearance_of_billions_of_years_of_ history_ in
>order to deceive reasoning human beings when in fact the world was only
>recently created as "a deceiver", and clearly stated that he did not in
>fact believe this to be the case.

>Jim, how do you resolve the contradiction between the evidence for the
>age of the earth, and the evidence that life here has evolved from
>simple creatures to the incredible diversity that we see today?

This is a matter of interpretation.

>What is your "a little research" that separates creationism from other
>irrational cults? 

Find the origin of the irrationial cults.

>Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: CFD: New newsgroup sci.siano.vs.schaeffer.battle.to.the.death
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:23:14 GMT

   Brilliant idea.  Much as talk.abortion and talk.politics.animals give us a
place to put the tasmanian-devils-of-the-net,

                 sci.siano.vs.schaeffer.battle.to.the.death

would give two people who's informational postings are quite valuable a
private place to work out their differences with only voluntary spectators
and none of this icky privacy that surrounds e-mail.

Dan
Dawell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:57:24 GMT

zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

>I came across the term kinesiology in a Mensa magazine article.  The version 
>of kinesiology they were talking about involved strengthening and weakening 
>somebody's muscles without touching them - theoretically without them being 
>aware you'd done it.  As pointed out on this group, that's basically an old 
>trick used by loads of people.  I'm quite prepared to believe there is a 
>REAL science of kinesiology, I just don't know anything about it.



What the Mensa magazine was referring to was "applied kinesiology" or AK.  
Kinesiology is an academic disipline and refers to body mechanics.  One of the
things that was developed by kinesiologists and used by physical therapists
is a means of testing muscle strength by a series of muscle tests.  This has 
been applied by chiropractors in conjunction with certain reflexes and massage
techniques to strengthen muscles and balance opposing muscles.  It has also 
been used by the Touch for Health Foundation to teach lay persons these 
techniques.  Some sports medicine people and trainers use it as well.

My experience with AK goes back about 13 or 14 years.  While I cannot ascribe
specific mechanisms/reasons for how some of the balancing techniques work, 
when done by well trained, reliable practitioners, it does work.  BTW, physi-
cians can't tell you ultimately how aspirin works either.  The key, as in 
any healing modality, be it allopathy, chiropractic, oriental medicine or 
whatnot, is a reliable practitioner.  There are lots of flakes who claim lots
of things with AK.  There are also lots of remarkable things that it can and 
has been used for.  Muscle tests can be biased by the practitioner in very
subtle ways.  However, once again, the same can be said for MD's.  BTW, I've
done the above experiment, somewhat modified, in a double blind manner.

-- 
Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
				 *Aristotle				      *
From: kontos@clipper.ingr.com (Thorne Kontos)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Monthly award winner
Keywords: M & K monthly awards ceremony...
Date: 15 Aug 92 06:55:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

M & K Enterprises, manufacturers of The Do-It-Yourself Crop Circle
Making Kit, are proud to present this month's award winners...

First, competition was tough this month, but we persevered, and
believe our choices are the best. So on with the awards, and their
prizes.

To John-_-Winston, a year's subscription to the Weekly World News.
We hope that this will put John into contact with people truly in-the-
know about today's modern alien menace...

To Jim Loucks, a brand new spanking clean copy of every holy book
written. Christ may have died to save your soul, but it hardly puts
you in the majority...

BTW, the M & K crop circle kit is offering used home fire alarms
to provide the necessary radioactives for your next crop circle.
Be the first on your block to fool the experts into thinking they
found a truly "genuine" crop circle. Picture the expression on 
their faces, when one of them chimes in with "It's RADIOACTIVE,
this proves that aliens must be behind these crop circles!!!!"
You can sit back and enjoy the show, as more so-called crop circle
experts pop out of the woodwork to examine the new RADIOACTIVE crop
circles...Just $9.95 each, order today. Pick up that phone now and
call 1-270-724-7253...