HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: mensa farce
Date: 1 Sep 92 09:27:25 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <6130007@hpfcbig.SDE.HP.COM> gt@hpfcbig.SDE.HP.COM (George Tatge) writes:
>Now how can you doubt the genius of a bunch of people who appear on
>David Letterman to form a long line to pass a Coke from the machine
>up to Letterman?

You're talking about the Rockettes?

>
>gt


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.philosphy.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 09:00:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.030619.8047@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@
augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

   >This is a misconception. Skeptics are axiomatically bound by the
   >laws of logic and thus confined to work in this narrow space.

   >However, I've been wondering if there is any fundamental reason why
   >the traditional binary logic system, of TRUE and FALSE, that evolved
   >from the ancient Greeks has to be the only way?

    ...

   >Are there any books written on this kind of stuff?

  Sure. Non-standard or non-classical logic is a pretty big subject.
Let's consider the skepticism you speak about from the point of view of
the adherents of intuitionistic logic. Skeptics who use classical logic
then emerge as dogmatic believers in the unjustified metaphysical
doctrines laid down in the rules of classical logic.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15912 talk.origins:10855
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:57:45 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)

In article <1296@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes (Bill Riggs) writes:
>As indicated above, David Utidjian appears to have figured out what I
>was up to - [the point that science does not PROVE a theory] - I'm
>still not sure how, or if Wiener will respond.

To express annoyance and boredom in your general direction that all you
can do is make hay over very well-known metaphysical difficulties that
pervade all scientific investigation and pass them off as a serious flaw
in one and one domain only.  I've met one person who _honestly_ does not
believe in evolution, meaning that he does not invoke tailor-made new
criterion for applying against evolution.  He does not believe the world
is round, Jupiter is a planet, nor that anyone gets massacred in China,
and so on.  If he reads it in the Bible, he calls it truth, otherwise, he
calls it illusion.

>Anyway, as a conservative, I am a relative novice to the ways of
>deconstruction, since I spend most of my energies defending theories,
>not demolishinhg them.

You don't need deconstruction.  Just hard evidence.

>I do fear that this thread has gone too far in an unhealthy
>direction.

As soon as you decided to evaluate evolution with no knowledge of the
basic material, the thread was inherently over the edge of intelligent
discussion.

>Would it not be a *shame* if, through the hubris and arrogance of my
>opponents, I actually *won* this argument and destroyed science as we
>know it ? :)

The only hubris and arrogance I have is the mountains and oceans full
of hard evidence.  Where, exactly, is yours?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What is intelligence?
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:25:10 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <GERRY.92Sep1123323@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
}  All intelligent being are capable of "rapid", controlled locomotion.
}Two notes:
}-This is a necessary, but not sufficient condition
}-Rapid means the ability to locomote a body length in some reasonable
} period of time, say less than an hour
}This basically serves to eliminate the plant kingdom.

Chauvinist!

MACROSCOPIC members of the plant kingdom.

;-)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,alt.cult-movies
From: otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela)
Subject: Re: Help! I'm bein' opressed (was: Derek tops Dan)
Followup-To: alt.cult-movies
Organization: The Crimson Permanent Assurance Company
	<1992Sep1.004557.26097@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
	<1992Sep1.122910.10513@actrix.gen.nz> <1992Sep1.104933@IASTATE.EDU>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:25:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.104933@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
   In article <1992Sep1.122910.10513@actrix.gen.nz>,
   Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
   > In article <1992Sep1.004557.26097@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
   dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

			     [Derek tops Dan thread]
   > I'd like to point out that in the UK, NZ and Australia, to "top"
   >someone means you killed them.

      Jesus Q. Budda!  I have to watch out for Aussie assasians now?  Yikes.
   I'll warn everyone with about sixty feet of me, since Derek is picking the 
   assasians.

Watch out, he's a Derek, and Dereks don't run !
-- 
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.32bis/USR-HST,24h/d) */
 /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1B18/SF-40100 Jyvaskyla/Finland, ICBM: 62.14N25.44E */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Crop circles: natural or human-made?
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: Tue, 25 Aug 92 18:27:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.131110.19089@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-
l.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.160750.22461@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John 
. Moore) writes:
>>PS... I saw a crop circle last week! On departure from London Heathrow
>>airport, I was looking at the fields to see what I could see. I
>>saw a pattern that was like:
>>
>>
>>       o
>>
>>     o O   o
>>
>>       o
>>
>>in a field... about 5 minutes after takeoff towards the North.
>
>Looks like the constellation of Cygnus.
>
It's not a crop circle anyway, I see loads of circular plantings whenever
I fly over the great plains and I'm pretty sure they were plowed that way.

Big Al.  But the circles I see are circular.







Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:49:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: GRASP Lab

In article <3670@execu.execu.com>, mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.033804.10671@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
> >What I fail to understand
> >is given your assumptions, just *what* do you find so valuable about life?  
> >Why not destroy it unnecessarily?
> 
> Could be risky behavior.  Depending on what life you destroy, you
> might attract the attention of others who have more power than you do.
> 
> This statement should apply regardless of his assumption.
> 
> There is also a question of "morality".
> 
> His assumption might influence "morality".  If man can create life,
> then it isn't so "sacred" any more?

Here we're getting somewhere. 
Just what could prevent me from destroying life if I can create it ?

1) Circonstances: I can make money out of it, my boss tell me so,
it is unlawful, etc.... Note that sometimes, we only use those
as excuses for rationalizing "gut feeling".

2) Morality: Crating life , I demystify (sp?) it. I'm not a god,
still I gain one of his major attribute. As surprising as it 
looks, I consider myself a scientist, yet I still believe in "sacred",
that is a system of values which maintain society and more specifically
my relationships with others, in harmony (It sound profound, but it's
not: love, friendship, mutual help, enlightment, teaching are things
I want to preserve). In that system, Life is important. I still get a
kick when I walk in a forest. If I could create one, I wouldn't want to
destroy it (regardless any ecologic argument). There are still things
I consider right and others wrong. Of course, there's a whole spectrum
here. I can stand to feel guilty once in a while ;)


To sum up, I don't need a god, I think science is the most powerful
thing man has ever created, but there's a point where only my
feelings decide what or what not to do. (Of course, I would
never enforce those feelings on anyone else).

JM.
------------ Every man a god.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS (long)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:26:07 GMT
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.


>I suppose you have not heard of the persons who have AIDS like symptoms,
>but no HIV antibodies? Whatever else this might mean, it would seem to
>demonstrate that a certain retro-virus may not be the cause, or assuming
>that it is -a- cause, not the sole cause of immunodeficiency.

This is not a threat to the idea that HIV causes classic AIDS. After all,
there are lots of ways for an immune system to screw up: why should it be
surprising that, once we started looking for failing immune systems so
intently, we would find a few (*) with various and unrelated causes? These
other disorders could have been around forever, caused by who-knows-what,
but no one noticed because we weren't looking very hard for such things.
Now we are.

(*) And I do mean a few. Less than 40 such are now known world-wide. As
yet they appear to have no demographics in common, except that a few
victims are the adult children of other victims.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:06:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.161332.12048@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew
Lawson) writes:
> it?  Did you actually _see_ animals 1,000,000 years ago?  If you did,
> you have more to offer science than theories.

Science does not claim or pretend to promise certainty.  This is why
scientific theories change all the time--as new information becomes
available, it gets integrated into current thought, and theories are
adjusted to accommodate the latest observations.  It's a process of
successive refinement, not of revelation, and there's no guarantee that
any given theory is "correct" in any metaphysical sense.  That simply
isn't what science is about (which is one of the ways in which science
and religion differ).

> I didn't claim that evolution disproves God's existence.  I claimed
> that many who post in favor of evolution claim that the "evidence"
> proves (at least) God's uninvolvement.

How many?  To whom are you referring?  In fact, as has been noted over
and over again, science does not ADDRESS the issue of God's involvement
or uninvolvement.  No logical necessity for divine intervention has been
discovered, but this is not "proof (at least) of God's uninvolvement." 
It's not intended as any such "proof," either.  Unless injecting God
into a theory makes the theory a better predictor of observations, there
is no need to drag God into it (and besides, I'd imagine the the Active
Creator and Master of All the Universe is probably too busy already to
want to participate in every single theory).  When you get the same
observational validity regardless of the inclusion or exclusion of any
particular factor, Occam's Razor says to discard that factor as
irrelevant (not "wrong," not "nonexistent," just "irrelevant" to the
theory in question).

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 10:17:33 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug28.090116.18789@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>You really do seem to miss the point. Evolution fits the data,
>creationism doesn't. Of course you're "allowed" to think up alternative
>theories, but I don't think it's asking too much to ask you to do some
>research first, and to fit the data with your theory.
 		        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry, of course this should be "fit the theory with the data".
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15594 talk.origins:10499
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:00:29 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)

In article <1992Aug31.194458.7777@asl.dl.nec.com>, duffy@aslss02 (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>My point is that the origin of life is not directly observable
>and therefore dogmatic statements about origin are out of line
>on either side of the issue.

A statement like "RNA world only, you clayheads are fools!" would indeed
be dogmatic and out of line.  But do note that statements about the occur-
ence of abiogenesis itself are not dogmatic, since it is based on numerous
uncontroversial points from physics, astronomy and geology regarding the
ancient earth.

>P.S. If you follow the original thread you'll see that videotape
>was given as an example of good evidence in a burglary case. Hence the
>satirical videotape comments. 

I guess the satire is blowing up in your face.  What percentage of
burglary cases are decided by videotape?  A tiny amount.  Evidence
comes in many forms, and saying someone is being dogmatic because
they skillfully use evidence other than the kind you insist on is
just plain silly.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 03:11:01 GMT

    Some have suggested picketing, demonstrations, etc to counter the ICR. As
an ex-fundamentalist, I tell you it won't work. Even if you provided evidence,
they wouldn't believe. And the attention of protest would only strenghten them.
Furthermore, the ICR knows how to handle the media. Most science types (like me
) don't. Why? IMHO, it's because science types look for the facts,
while the media look for a story. A minority group being persecuted is a much
better story than good science.
   Science can be presented in a format that the general public will like.
And it doesn't need to be tax supported. The Discovery channel makes a pro-
fit.
  What to do? Produce a good science show if you can. If your abilities don't
incline that way, help out those whose talents do lie in the showbiz direction.
And if you can't do either, do your science work as best you can.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15846 talk.origins:10780
From: utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 3 Sep 1992 17:20:16 GMT
Organization: Processed People for a Processed America
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <25952@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <182qgkINN4jj@agate.berkeley.edu>, utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes...
>> 
>>SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE A THEORY!!! It can only dis-prove a theory.
>>David Utidjian
>
>That's an awfully myopic view of science.  Consider the following theories:
>

I think that you may have missed the fundamental point here Scott.

>(1) The Earth is round.

There is the fact that the earth is round.  This fact is made up of
a bunch of little facts/data; such as, photographs, eyewitness accounts,
circumnavigation, some Greek experiment to do with sunlight and wells,
etc...... These facts exist independent of a theory to explain them.
There is a theory that the earth is round or somewhat spherical, if you
prefer.  This theory is supported by the facts.  This theory explains
the existing facts AND makes predictions about finding new ones. 

Fr'instance.....
Lets' say that no one had photographed the earth from outer space yet
or circumnavigated it, or had any evidence that the earth was round 
other than the ancient Greek experiment and the observation that the
sun and the moon appear to be round.  From those two sets of facts
I theorize that if I keep travelling either west or east I will
end up at the place from which I began.  Someoneorother did just that.
This person circumnavigted the earth, and hence, had a new fact to
support the theory that the earth is round.

>(2) Atoms have nuclei.
>(3) Prolonged exposure to intense nuclear radiation is harmful to your health.
>(4) Blood circulates through the body, passing from arteries to viens through
>small passages too small to see with the naked eye.
>(5) The brain is the seat of thought.
>(6) Diamonds and graphite are not the only stable forms of pure carbon.

I think similar distinctions can be made for the above theories to set them
apart from the facts that explain them.

>Which of these theories would you say are not yet proven beyond any 
>possible infinitesmal shread of a doubt?

None of the theories are *proven*, the theories mentioned above are
very well supported by the *facts*.

I will not argue that this point of view is not "myopic".  I find it
an interesting exercise to try and separate the facts from the theories.
It may even be a useful point of view.  It is very important in the
discussion of origins with creationists.  To have a useful discussion
we need to make our definitions as clear and understandable as we possibly
can.  I hope that I have been able to do this now and in the future.



David Utidjian

	"Don't sweat the technique!"
				Anon.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:24:31 GMT

wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:

: What happens when these fundamentalist types get power can be seen
: in Iran, where the nightmares that the main character had after
: losing his faith (all in a novel) were taken to be identical to the
: author Salman Rushdie's own viewpoints, whereupon a contract was put
: on him.  Christian fundamentalism is to be feared more, because the
: Christian holy books contain many more Officially Sanctioned
: Massacres than the Q'uran.
: 

At this particular point in history, the Christian countries also have
much more efficient weapons than other countries.  Unfortunately, the
US, which probably has the most destructive capabilities, also seems
to be much more under the influence of right-wing fundamentalist
christian "values" than the other first world countries.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I think I am an
Rosemount Inc.                                |overnight sensation right
                                              |now!!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: Worse than AIDS
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:12:45 GMT



> From: bbbbre01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Doon)
 
> Don't more people die of hepatitis and TB than of AIDS?


I don't have figures for hepatitis or TB, but according to the US
Department of health, the following were leading causes of death in
the US in 1990.  I'd be curious to know how these figures correlate to
dollars spent on research and solutions.

--Dave Wood


Leading Causes of Death, 1990
-----------------------------

                        Rate per
Rank    Cause           100,000         Percent
----    -----------     -------         -------

        Over-all        861.9           100.0

1.      Heart disease   289.0            33.5
2.      Cancers         201.7            23.4
3.      Stroke           57.9             6.7
4.      Lung disease     35.5             4.1
5.      Flu/Pneumonia    31.3             3.6
6.      Diabetes         19.5             2.3
7.      Auto accidents   19.1             2.2
8.      Misc. accidents  18.2             2.1
9.      Suicide          12.3             1.4
10.     Unknown          10.5             1.2
11.     Cirrhosis/liver  10.2             1.2
12.     Homicide         10.2             1.2
13.     AIDS              9.6             1.1
14.     Kidney disease    8.3             1.0
15.     Septicemia        7.9              .9
16.     Birth defects     7.0              .8
17.     Atheriosclerosis  6.6              .8

        Other causes    117.6            13.6


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 04:59:04 GMT

In article <87306@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1272@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>				   Whether Darwin was right or not depends
>>quite solely on his ability to have made a calculated scientific 
>>wild-ass guess.
>
>This is just gibberish.  As a historian, you're an idiot.
>-- 
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

Well, I guess you told him!  Nice, well thought out intellectual
conversation here.  One thing I will say.  Of the two sides in
this argument, one side is polite and tries to honestly convey
what they think, while the other side, which is in the majority,
tends to be emotional and rude.  It's like 50 against 3, and many
people in the group of 50 can think of nothing better than insults
to counter arguments that merely 3 people or so put forth.  My
gosh, are you really that insecure about the evolution/creationism
issue?  Seems to me I don't ever remember Steven Jay Gould
behaving like this...

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729