HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 29 Sep 1992 08:08:29 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep24.194015.241@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
>Wrong?  Hardly.  A correction of less than 1/2 of 1% is not exactly
>"wrong", now is it.

Well, actually, if expressing the change as a percentage of the temperature
made any sense, it'd be more reasonable to call it a correction of less than
.075%, since the Kelvin scale makes more sense for that sort of thing. 
However, expressing the change that way is pretty dumb.  A better figure would
be as a percentage of the range over which human body temperature can
relatively safely vary.  Say plus or minus 3 degrees Fahrenheit, for the sake
of discussion.  Now we've got a change of over 10% of the safe excursion from
normal.

>Anyway, "science" has long been well aware of 
>the fact that the body temp varies throughout the day and between
>individuals.  These facts mean that the entire concept of a single 
>"normal" temperature is a pretty meaningless concept anyway, which
>probably explains why nobody corrected it--it is totally irrelevant
>to any but the most trivial science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:39:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Sep30.193930.2799
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep30.151136.10539@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <k4_p54f.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep27.223827.26557@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>In article <vn#pa5=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep26.145922.22060@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Rich, the dictionary defines religious beliefs as those beliefs
>>>>>concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe
>>>>>especially belief or worship in God or gods.  Superstition, on the
>>>>>other hand is defined as an irrational belief in the ominous
>>>>>significance of a particular thing or circumstance. Therfore, in
>>>>>my mind, if somone has a set of beliefs that deal basically with
>>>>>the first definition, then even if the set of beliefs consist of
>>>>>something which we may think as irrational doom & gloom, I would
>>>>>put it in the first category.  If however, I have an isolated
>>>>>belief e.g. if I knock on wood three times, I am averting
>>>>>disaster, this would be a superstition since it does not tie in
>>>>>any way with the first definition.  Does this make sense to you?
>>>>
>>>>So are you then saying that 'knock[ing] on wood three times' to
>>>>avert disaster does not related to 'the cause, nature, or purpose
>>>>of the universe'?  I am not sure that I do follow you. 
>>>
>>>Exactly, there is nothing is this belief, in and of itself, that
>>>has any relevance to the cause, nature or purpose of the universe.
>>
>>Lets see, cause - knocking in wood, effect - aversion of disaster.
>>It is clearly causal. And since there is no apparent explicit relationship
>>between cause and effect, there must be a more fundamental relationship.
>>I can see no realtionship that is not rooted in the fundamental nature
>>of the universe (whatever that is) which could have the power to avert
>>disaster. 
>
>One more time... sure it's causal, *anything* can be said to be causual.  What
>does it tell you in general, however, about the cause of the universe?

About as much as religion does. What can one say about 'god created the
heavens and the earth' other than it is a causal claim. I see the distinction
you are making, but not the difference.
 
>>
>>>This is not to say that you couldn't have a set of religious
>>>beliefs that would contain this belief.  In that case, it would
>>>not be superstition. 
>>
>>Christians have the same evidence of the existance of god, heaven, and
>>hell that the fellow knocking on wood has this will bring good luck.
>>How is it that one is superstition, and the other is not? 
>
>My such claims!

Oh? You have some clear objective evidence for any of the above? If not,
my claim is true. And I claim only lack of objective evidence.
 
>> 
>>>>Rich
>>>>payner@netcom.com

Rich again...
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17009 alt.folklore.urban:24333
From: smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Org. 1600, Albq., NM
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:41:01 GMT

From article <by+pf0=.anson@netcom.com>, by anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy):
> Since Arkansas is one of the states which had legislation requiring the
> teaching of scientific creationism, does anyone know what Bill Clinton's
> position on the matter is?
> -- 
> 
> Anson Kennedy                                                  anson@netcom.com

	No idea on his opinions, but if I remember right, good old Governor
Frank White lost the election following the trial-fiasco.  Clinton 
became the Governor.  Wouldn't it be ironic if the Creationists were
responsible for Bill Clinton being in the White House?
Just a pleasant thought for the day.  (If you like Clinton anyway)

Scott Lackey

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17300 talk.religion.misc:17524
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:26:05 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1154@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>This is not what I understood from an Orthodox colleague of mine a few years
>back.  He claimed that in visiting a sick relative/friend at the hospital
>he had to stand in the elevator until it happened to stop on the right floor
>(since pushing the button would be considered work - in particular lifting
>a load [himself]).  When I asked him why he could not request someone else
>to push the button for him, he said that work by proxy was still work.


  By the classical definition of work, the bloke should have never
  even lifted his butt out of bed in the morning.  

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientific facts
Date: 3 Oct 1992 19:49:12 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep29.185129.31476@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
=In article <1aa443INNe2l@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
=>In article <1992Sep29.150200.31779@mp.cs.niu.edu>, you write:
=>=>>I'll give you my informal and unofficial definition of fever.  (No, I do
=>=>>not have any medical qualifications).
=
=>=Now please expound on your wonderful theories of physics and the heat
=>=equation, and their relation to this.
=>
=>Certainly:  The rate at which heat is conducted between a source and a sink
=>is proportional to the difference in temperatures of the source and the sink.
=>...
=
=Your mistake is to think of the thermometer as the sink and the tongue
=as the source.  Actually the sink includes the tongue and other parts
=of the mouth, as well as the thermometer, and the source is the interior
=of the body.  The rate at which heat is being transferred from the
=interior to the periphery through the blood stream is the essential
=factor.  This is not a static conduction problem, but a problem with
=forced warm fluid flow.

But the initial temperature of the thermometer is also an important
consideration.

=The rapidity of rise of the thermometer is not measuring the body
=temperature, but the rate at which blood is being pumped to the periphery.
=As the earlier discussion on sci.skeptic indicated, body temperature is
=not a very reliable measure of fever, particularly when it is a low
=grade fever.

Nor is circulatory rate.  There are a number of factors other than fever which
can affect it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 22:57:00 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA

this has virtually nothing to do with the discussion, but too bad; i find it
interesting.

did anyone read last week's parade magazine? there was an article by carl
sagan and someone else (i forget her name) about chimps.

one interesting point was that some scientists gave a chimp two stacks of
pictures: one stack was of pictures of humans, and the other was of pictures
of non-human animals.  they then gave the chimp a new stack of photos, this
one having both human and non-human animals.

the chimp proceeded to seperate this stack into human and non-human stacks.
she got everything right.  except one picture.  she put the picture of herself
in the "human" stack.

even further removed from the discussion is another interesting experiment:
scientists got a bunch of maques (some sort of higher primate) and paired them
up.  each pair would be dealt with as follows: one would be placed on one side
of a glass wall, the other on the other side.  they were in plain view of
each other.  there was a chain in one room.  if the chimp in that room pulled
the chain, he would get fed.  if not, he would not get fed.  however, there
was a catch: if he pulled the chain, the other maque would get an electric
shock, causing obvious pain.

after the chimp with the chain figured this out, they would refuse to pull
the chain.  relative social standing of the two chimps didn't matter; nor
did whether the two chimps knew each other or not.  one chimp starved himself
for two weeks before giving in and pulling the chain.

makes you wonder who has more humanity, us or chimpanzees.  actually, it
doesn't make you wonder at all.  it flat out slaps you across the face
with the facts.




Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:02:16 GMT

In article <1a4mvtINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>Well, before we can answer your question about scientifically demonstrating the
>existence of a soul, how about you give us a definition of soul that you're
>willing to stick to throughout the rest of the discussion.

I would define soul as that spiritual part of us humans that
defines us in God's image. It is a separate entity, infused into
the body before birth, and leaves the body at death.  Because it
is the part of us that is like God, it is intrinsically and
naturally immortal.  Furthermore, it is the principle behind our
intellect and reasoning ability.

Note: The dictionary (Random House) defines soul as the principal
of life, feeling and thought in humans regarded as a distinct
spiritual entity separate from our body. 

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:04:35 GMT

In article <1alcflINNk87@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.031305.14118@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>You're right.  I thought he was saying that a belief in a rabbit's foot
>>was indistinguishable from religion.  That is why I was trying to show
>>that it didn't fit into the definition of religion.
>>
>>However, doesn't a belief in a rabbit's foot bringing good luck have the
>>implication that if I forget my rabbit's foot or fail to carry it with
>>me today, then *bad* luck will strike me?
>
>No, it doesn't.  A belief in the rabbit's foot bringing good luck simply
>implies that if you fail to carry it, your luck won't be especially good.
>
>>That certainly sounds ominous to me!
>
>By the way, a belief that, for example, failing to receive extreme unction just
>prior to death will condemn one to eternal punishment (or is it just a longer
>stretch in purgatory) sounds pretty ominous to me.  If you don't like the
>Catholic example, then I'm sure you can find a similar one in the religion of
>your choice.

Carl, this is simply not true.  There is *NO* Catholic belief that
the Sacrament of the Sick (Extreme Unction) is necessary for
salvation.  A person may go straight to Heaven without this
sacrament.  This sacrament was instituted to help the dying person
recover first their spiritual health, and possibly their physical
health.  However, it requires the repentance of the dying
person if that person is seriously alienated from God.  There is
no magic formula that in and of itself guarantee eternal
salvation to the dying person.

Now I will grant you that most Catholics would prefer to receive
the Sacrament of the Sick prior to their death and consider it a
grace from God (not good luck) if they are able to do so.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>

-- 
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
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:08:39 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 717373238@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca, userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:
> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Sep24.115217.11296@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
> >>
> >>I got a reply earlier doubting the integrity of my facts. I stated that humans
> >>and chimpanzees were 99% alike. The person who replied had heard that only a
> >>fraction of the genetic data are actually used to code a human being, the rest is
> >>junk-DNA. 
> >> 
> 
> >Maybe this junk DNA consists of comments in the code?? 
> 
>    No, it is actually code that is never executed. 6000 years ago, when
> the code was originally written, the compilers didn't flag this sort of
> situation. If we were to recompile with a new compiler today, we could
> get rid of most of it, as we would now be aware of which code is unnecessary.
> 
> 
> Dave Halliwell
> Department of Geography
> University of Alberta
> Edmonton, Alberta

Just curious: Did you leave the smilely faces off on purpose or by accident?

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Organization: Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:07:26 -0400 
From: Daniel Read <dr3u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Skeptic Novels
	<Bv54D4.3tK@andy.bgsu.edu>

All of John Sladek's very fine satires have "skeptical" elements.  Two mystery 
novels, BLACK AURA and SIMPLE GREEN provide unadulterated debunking of para-
normal phenomena.  Required reading!

daniel
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.newage
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The Real Truth About Science
Date: 2 Oct 1992 21:46:45 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


The following is taken without permission from the 18 Sep 92 issue of Science,
pp 1626-27.

"... MIT math professor Gian-Carlo Rota thinks the world could use a newsletter
devoted to debunking pseudoscientific theory like economic modeling and
Freudian analysis.  Statistical analysis has shown the latter to be less
effective than African witchcraft, says Rota, giving you a flavor of what he
intends to say in his startup, which is to be titled "State of the Art."

" If you're interested, Rota urges you to contact him at MIT right away
for a trial issue (subscription price is yet to be determined), because
continued funding for the enterprise is contingent on establishing a
credible mailing list." 

And thanks to the miracle of Internet - oops, sorry, we don't allow
miracles in this group - we learn
	 name: Rota,  Gian-Carlo
	      email: ROTA@MATH.MIT.EDU
		   phone: (617) 253-4344
		      address: 2-351
		      department: Mathematics
			   title: Professor
				alias: G-rota

-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:29:43 GMT

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>>In article <717391059.AA00000@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>>
>>Sorry, I don't quite follow. A few dealers in foreign coins amount to a power
>>base? And of the aristocracy, no less? Most aristocracies' power bases rest in
>>land holdings and political influence. Assuming that the alleged incident
>>happened, it was probably as significant as a crowd of university students
>>pelting someone with eggs.
>
>I think that "moneychanger" is a slight mistranslation.  In those days
>there was no uniform currency.  Money had to be weighed or otherwise
>validated at the point of purchase.  There was a large group of people,
>your "moneychanger" who provided this function, in the marketplaces and
>elsewhere, for a fee.  In a Middle Eastern market, after negotiating a 
>sale, you and the merchant would search for, or call for, a wandering
>"moneychanger" who could come over to oversee the exchange of monies.
>This had nothing to do with foreign exchange, with which a modern moneychanger 
>is involved.
>
>And since these people handled lots of cash, and were responsible for 
>guaranteeing that the money you were accepting was actually gold, and not
>underweighed, they were forced to become tightly organized - scales had
>to be calibrated, quality assured - and they became a powerful organization.

I believe that in the case of the temple, the moneychangers WERE acting as
foreign exchange mercents.  I am of the understanding that only a
partiuclar currency was 'approved' for donation to the temple, if one was
to remain 'pure'...and as such, these buisnessmen did a brisk business
exchanging Roman or other coin for approved currency...

But then again, I could be wrong...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Warnke and stratford
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:39:39 GMT

In article <n0ad7t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
(David Rice) wrote as follows:

> I have the article of Stratford, in ASCII. It is 50,000+ bytes.
> Shall I break it into nine or ten aticles and post it here? I am
> limited to 99 lines per article, do to gating into usenet. Or
> I will US Mail it via floppy diskette if you like. 714-458-6000
>
> I also have the Warnke file.

David!  It is always good to hear from you, here, in _FidoNews_, on
the Skeptic echo, wherever.

Both the Stratford and Warnke articles have been making the rounds of
the Internet for some time.  Probably somebody who is not having to work
through a UFgate gateway can post them to the group.

Best Regards,
Rick M.

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: KOSHER? In a Pig's Eye!
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:32:18 GMT

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>In article <roelle.717686439@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>>The host I were strangers until that morning.  I hadn't the slightest
>>notion he kept Kosher.  As someone pointed out this is a situation of
>>culture clash...

>Yet another example of your appalling ignorance of other customs.  Given what
>you've told us, I'm pretty certain that there was, indeed an indication:  It's
>called a mezuzah, and you would've seen it attached to the doorpost of the
>home, had you had the slightest shred of understanding of a culture not your
>own.

Where did you get the idea that I consider myself an expert on culture?
You make it sound as if I think of myself as a cultural whiz.  In my original 
post I thought I made my ignorance abundantly clear.  What new information 
have  you given to help answer the question I have been asking?  None.  
But as long as we are on a new tangent...

For now let's assume I can tell the difference between a mazuka and a 
bazooka hanging on someone's doorpost.  In my original post I indicated that
it was night.  That is why I said "pre-dawn":  So you would know that 
it was DARK outside.  This was the home of an amateur astronomer.  There
were no lights on outside.  Us astronomers would rather see starlight than 
someone's mazuka bathed in street light 8?].

Would you please e-mail or post an ascii illustration of your typical mazuka?

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.

Curt