HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Innumeracy (Was: Re: Jeane Dixon Predicts Bush Victory)
Date: 13 Nov 92 13:18:25 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:

>I heard an education expert interviewed on public radio a while back.
>She was a proponent of outcome based educate (OBE).  She talked about
>the high rate of illiteracy and innumeracy in graduates of the the
>present educational system.  She then stated that with new methods
>like OBE, and hard work, and commitment from parents "everybody could
>be above average."  She wasn't ripping off Garrison Kiellor's joke
>either, she was dead serious.

Was that illiteracy, innumeracy, or just sloppy speech?  Since
it's obvious (to me, at least) that she meant everyone could be
above the current average, what's the big deal?
          ^^^^^^^

-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.tech
From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Does matter exist?
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:59:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.035311.7478@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>  I assume everyone on this list is aware that this is basically
>Berkleyism?  I like Samuel Johnson's comment on Berkley:  he
>"...aimed a might kick at a stone, and said, 'Thus do I refute him!'"
>
Before you like him too much, you should know that his "joke" does nothing
to impugn Berkeley's position.  Berkeley never said you wouldn't have 
the sensations associated with kicking a stone; only that there was no
reason to believe there to be anything "beyond" these sensations. Thus,
the "refutation" fails. 


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.tech
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Does matter exist?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:04:53 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Nov3.035311.7478@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>  I assume everyone on this list is aware that this is basically
>Berkleyism?  I like Samuel Johnson's comment on Berkley:  he
>"...aimed a might kick at a stone, and said, 'Thus do I refute him!'"

No, it's not necessarily Berkeleyan idealism..._if_ you construe the
position to be that "matter" is unintelligible, it does not follow that
everything is made out of "mind". It may be that the philosopher in
question was trying to redirect or "dissolve" the question, "What is
everything made out of?". In that case, it makes no sense to suggest that
everything is made out of either mind or matter, or both--or neither. 

The problem with getting people unstuck from talking about things like "the
mind-body problem", "dualism", "materialism", or "idealism" is that people
_think_ they know what a philosopher means by "matter". They think matter
is _easy_ to understand. Because they think this, they believe that they
have the starting point for the dialogue: "_This_ is what matter is like
(kicks stone). Now, am I made entirely out of this kickable stuff?" After
the philosopher has been thinking along these lines for a while, it might
even occur to him why kicking a stone is not a refutation of Berkeley.

By then, the fly is well into the bottle.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 06:16:46 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov11.020311.1270@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>Just for grins, I looked up "Jesus" in my
>copy of the "Random House Dictionary" (hardly a Chrisitian
>publication).  It's definition is as follows:
>
>Jesus : born 4? B.C., crucified A.D. 29?, the source of the Christian religion.
>Also called Jesus Christ.
>
>As a control :) the definition of "Lincoln" is:
>
>Lincoln: 1. Abraham 1809-65, 16th president of the US, 1861-65.

Why not try a few more controls, including some that might have a chance of
falsifying your hypothesis (i.e., EFFECTIVE controls;  you *DO* know what that
means, don't you?).  Have you looked up, for example, Santa Claus?  How about
Odin?  Odysseus?

>While not definitive proof that Jesus was crucified, it certainly bears out
>the contention that it is the historically accepted version which is in
>complete agreement with all four Gospels.

Depends on whether the Random House dictionary is willing to define fictional
characters, doesn't it?  And, of course, your self-serving "control" didn't
bother to check for that, did it?  Does being a Christian REALLY destroy brain
functionality THAT much?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:41:40 GMT

In article <1d9tk0INNsqf@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.035737.21533@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>In article <1d39m7INNcir@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>>In article <6123@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>>>>In article <1d2gqeINNrnn@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>>Perhaps, Jan, you joined this newsgroup sometime since Derek's last foray into
>>>QM and free will.
>>
>>The last foray has nothing to do with this post. QM, free will etc
>>were only mentioned as examples of philosphical mysteries. They are
>>not central to this discussion.
>
>In that case, you blithering idiot, WHY DID YOU WASTE BANDWIDTH BY INCLUDING
>SOMETHING THAT YOU NOW CLAIM WAS TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT?
>

It was obvious. Did you miss that little "eg" before the examples?

>
>>Please control your hormones, Carl :-)>
>
>As it turns out, I don't have a lot of control over when the insulin I inject
>each morning finally makes its way into my bloodstream.
>
>>Your summary of the last foray was coloured by the fact that you didn't
>>understand what I was trying to acheive by my questions.
>
>>eg. my goal _might_ have been to acheive a long thread :-)
>
>Well, in that case you're a liar, because you made statements during that
>previous thread that are inconsistent with a claim that you simply wanted to
>start a long thread.

Carl, you've missed that little "eg" again.

Are you sure that insulin you are taking isn't affecting
your eyesight?
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: On topic? Right!
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:43:58 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

Who: zellner@stsci.edu (Ben)
ID: 1992Nov5.231623.1@stsci.edu
 
>DR> I do not consider Christians my enemy. I do, though,
>DR> consider Christianity my enemy. A greater evil one
>DR> would be hard pressed to find.
 
>JA-FSO> "What about Christianity makes you see it as
>JA-FSO> your enemy?"
 
Ben> [long response]
 
Ben> I'm glad you responded. Some of what you said is indeed
Ben> what Christianity teaches, from Jesus through Paul, Augustine,
Ben> Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, and mainstream denominations today.
Ben> Some of it is from the lunatic fringe, and some of it just
Ben> illustrates how people can pervert ANYTHING to their own
Ben> illicit purposes."
 
Yes, and who is to know which are the lunatic fringe? Every group
points to all the other groups and calls them the lunatic fringe.
Does one look for the one harmless puppy in a pack of mad dogs,
or does one treat them all with the same respect one treats a
neurotic child who wields a pistol?
 
Ben> But still: Does the fact that you find a proposition morally
Ben> repugnant, repressive, abominable -- even if ALL human beings
Ben> find it abominable -- Does that prove that it is UNTRUE? That,
Ben> I think, ought to call for a little skepticism! Cheers, Ben"
 
When folks are warm and snug in their beds at night, their morality
is entirely different than, say, sleeping in a gutter or fighting
for a crust of bread. Feed a man and then ask him where his loyalty
lay! I would kill my neighbor to feed my children--- wouldn't you?
 
Good people do evil things, and the way they justify it to themselves
is to call that evil "good." How can someone pull the trigger on a
stranger, because the State assigned the label of "enemy" on that
stranger, otherwise? Religion is THE BEST device for converting evil
acts into good, because doing evil for a "higher perpose" frees
one from the question "Is this moral? Is this just? Is this ethical?"
Listen to George Bush's weekly radio shows during the "Gulf War,"
and how his beginning and ending payers justified his actions!
 
Intent is the foundation of morality. What are the motives of those
who give the orders?
 
I observe that the rulers and leaders of Christianity have a flawed
intent, and thus their morality is flawed--- it is the morality that
is most politically expediant for the times, and not the morality
that is good for the Commonwealth.
 
Is it moral to go on TV and fake hundreds of thousands into believing
you can heal sick people, with the result that the "healed" died later
because they did not seek REAL help? How do Christians justify that
death? Were they doing God's work, thus one or two deaths are
acceptable? The ring-leaders of Christianity are oh so willing to
have their followers pay the price, in blood, for the leader's sick,
flawed brand of morality.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:07:09 GMT

In article <1dv1k6INNkrp@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1duupoINN5bl@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
>
>=One more thing:  Some people (I won't speak for others) would like their
>=personal philosophy to be founded on rationality, and the only way they
>=can be sure their philosophy is rational is to try to defend it.  Carl,
>=for such people, and in particular for myself, you perform a valuable
>=service, by trying to make us think hard about what we believe.  If, as
>=you have claimed, talk.religion or talk.philosophy don't require grounding
>=for yd's statements, yd could not get such a service there.
>
>Well, in that case, I'd suggest that you take a look around and determine, BY
>OBSERVATION RATHER THAN BY IDEOLOGY, which behaviors can be uniquely ascribe to
>Christianity before you tout such behavior as one of the great aspects of
>Christianity.  You might be surprised.  There are quite a few atheists,
>agnostics, pagans, and other non-Christians out there who actually exhibit the
>behavior you wish to ascribe to your religion.  And you'll find a great many of
>your coreligionists who DON'T exhibit that sort of behavior.  Then you should
>ask yourself, "Is there any evidence that Christianity makes people any better?

I totally agree that there are atheists, agnostics, pagans, etc who 
demonstrate positive behavior also attributable to Christians. This
positive behavior is only natural for humans to employ. It is human
nature. Christianity is just another way to encapsulate and enforce
such a system of beliefs. Atheists, agnostics, etc rely on our legal
system to enforce a system of moral beliefs. These laws are also based
partially on religious laws (ie. 10 commandments ). Don't try to
separate human nature from religion, religion stems from our basic need
to understand the unknown, insure peaceful coexistence with each other,
etc.

---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: alex@lyra.colorado.edu (Alex Matthews)
Subject: Re: Audis (was Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives)
Originator: alex@lyra
Organization: APAS Department, CU Boulder
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:08:53 GMT

In article <BxItJ0.7I8.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>
>The Audi's brakes are strong enough to stall a runaway engine.

This is the key point.  I have not seen a car advertised that can accelerate
faster than it can brake.  The brakes can normally dissipate energy faster
than the engine can produce it.  Even the lowly parking brake prevents
a 400 cid Pontiac from budging.

What convinced me that it was driver error was the testimony that drivers
were standing on a control pedal with all their might, yet the car
*accelerated*.  If they were standing on the brake pedal, then the brakes
failed, not the transmission or fuel delivery system.  Because of the
redundancy designed into the brake master cylinders, and the testimony
that the brakes were okay, it is doubtful that the drivers were stepping
on the brake pedal.

In addition to the suspect pedal placement, I have read that the Audi
pedals were similar to one another in size and feel, which probably 
contributed to the confusion.  For a good history of this sort of
thing happening in the automotive industry, I recommend Nader's 
book, _Unsafe At Any Speed_.

-- 
-Alex Matthews (alex@lyra.colorado.edu, matthews@jila.bitnet)
DoD #0010   
"Occasionally we may try to reroute you briefly onto a particularly
beautiful side road...." - Numerical Recipes
From: wbrown@access.digex.com (William Brown)
Subject: Re: AIDS and the CIA (was Question)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:01:56 GMT


In article <1992Nov12.202044.14862@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave
Pipes x4552) writes: 


>
>That's interesting.  LSD was tested on white, middle-class psychiatric
>outpatients, in Boston at least.  A psychiatrist my father saw at one
>point was involved with these tests, as it turned out.  My dad was none
>too pleased.
>
>Soldiers were used in the late 40's and early 50's to test the effects of 
>atomic bombs.  At one point, I believe prisoners could volunteer to test
>various medicines.  A contagious flu virus was released on a crowded subway
>in New York City (?) in the 60's to test the epidemiology of bioweapons.
>
>	David Pipes
>robear@digex.com

David,
   About that "flu virus" in the New York subway.  It was not a virus, it
was a bacteria - S. marcesens (sp?) if I'm not mistaken.  And one very
important point.  At the time it was released (and it WAS released to test
the spread of potential biological weapons) it was NOT KNOWN that this
bacteria produced disease.  In fact, the bacteria was thought to be
harmless, but to easily trackable - that is why it was picked. 
Unfortunately, all those subway riders started comming down with an
unusual pneumonia...

    Well, you live and you learn.  The hard way.

Peace

Bill
 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pal@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Peter Loibl)
Subject: Re: When will K2 grow up?
Organization: Technical University of Munich, Germany
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:15:57 GMT

"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:

>>DATE:   9 Nov 1992 18:33:50 GMT
>>FROM:   E.J. Draper <draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu>
>>
>>In article <1992Nov9.172144.20865@maths.tcd.ie> Derek Bell,
>>dbell@maths.tcd.ie writes:

>Rats!  My 1988 World Almanac lists K-2 as the highest.  Can I sue?
>My humiliation should be worth a thousand, anyway.  Evidently they
>measured K-2 first with the satellite geodesy and it showed up higher
>than Everest's old figure.  They published the almanac.  Then they
>measured Everest and restored it to its former status, making me
>look like an idiot in the process.  8^(  RATS!!

Hi!

I just happen to know the guy, who measured K2 on statelite photos
and thought, that it is higher then known before. He told me, that
he went with a team to the mountain and re-measured it. They found,
that he  measured wrong on the satellites pictures. At least that's
what he told me.

Peter Loibl
pal@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Where has Galileo been all these years?
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:38:58 GMT

In article <2930020228.3.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>Did I hear correctly?  Has the Vatican now officially recognized the
>!!!SUN as the center of the universe?  Surely not.
>
>Whatever.  In any case, the Pope seems sorry Galileo has been in
>Purgatory, lo these many years, but what if G.G. was supposed to have gone

Of course the Church has recognized that the sun is the center of
the universe for some time now.  It has now gotten around to
stating officially that it's condemnation of Gallelio was wrong.

>to Heaven in 1843, having done his time burning in the fires of hell?
>Just for the sake of argument (we don't know if G.G.'s
>even due to get out anytime soon, with or without this heresy rap)
>if he had been due an earlier release from agony, could he sue God 
>for false damnation?  Or would he sue the Pope for making the mistake?

FYI, the Church has never made an absolute pronouncement that
anyone is with certainty in Hell or Purgatory, only Heaven.

Also, if I remember correctly, Gallelio gave in to the demands of
the Inquisition and recanted. 

>jim tims 



-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19354 alt.messianic:3439
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 04:46:11 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov10.173344.13171@bony1.bony.com>, billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill
Gripp) writes:
=>4) The Romans, however, had MORE than enough reason to crucify Jesus. Claiming
=>   to be the "King Messiah" was a DIRECT CHALLENGE to the Roman Emperor and more
=>   than enough reason to be crucified (remember, thieves were crucified, a sin  
=>   much less dangerous to the Romans, than direct challenge and competetion)
=>   The Romans were also the ONLY ones at the time, who had the authority to
=>   execute anybody. It was only after the establishment of the Roman-Catholic
=>   church, hundreds of years later, that the original story was changed and the
=>   Sandhedrin was blamed.
=
=Uh, Jesus taught that citizens were subject to their governments.  Give
=unto Caesar what is Caeser's, a slave should not seak to be free, etc.
=Each person serves God from the place they are in in life.  Nothing
=there for the Romans to have a problem with.  Jesus also claimed that
=his kingdom was not of this world, so again he did not challange Roman
=authority.  

That's what the New Testament says.  Other than that, what evidence do we have
that those were, indeed, his teachings?  If I recall correctly, the New
Testament *ALSO* says something about a sign proclaiming Jesus King of the Jews
attached to the crucifix.  Sounds to me like the Romans must've gotten that
idea from SOMEWHERE.  Such a sign would be a fairly effective way of
discouraging other would-be kingly messiahs, don't you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:46:09 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

In article <1dk53sINN9or@gap.caltech.edu> magney@nntp-server.caltech.edu.ogi.edu writes:

   I personally use the term "Christian" to refer to any person who believes
   that the Bible (Old and New Testament) is completely accurate, and that
   the main ways in which various denominations differ is in the
   interpretation of the Bible.  Now, this definition involves a sizable
   number of exceptions, but we'll let it stand for now and just be wary of
   generalizing with it.

This seems to be a contradiction!  If the bible is completely
accurate, then there is only one way to interpret it, thus there
should be a single denomination.  The fact that there are many is
proof ( :-) for the humor impaired)  that the bible is not completely
accurate.  [The bible's inaccuracies are, however, easily demonstrated.]

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The settled opinion here is that religion is
Field Robotics Center,          | essentially distinct from Civil Govt and
Carnegie Mellon University      | exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | between them is injurious to both; ...that a
(412) 268-3856                  | legal establishment of religion without
                                | toleration could not be thought of, and with a
The opinions expressed are mine | toleration, is no security for public quiet &
and do not reflect the official | harmony, but rather a source itself of discord
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | & animosity; finally that these opinions are
or any other organization.      | supported by experience...  James Madison