HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:29:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: spectrum.1992Sep28.132929.1293
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox

In article <1a0jrsINNqp7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark) writes:
|> 
|> 
|>  Proponents of astrology have used the argument that the different
|> gravitation pulls of the Sun and the Moon on the Earth at different
|> times of the year could be used to explain the alleged differences
|> in personality by birthdate. They cite the enormous gravitational
|> influence of the tides to show how fluids on the earth, and by
|> extrapoloation fluids in our bodies, are affected by astronomical
|> objects. 
|>   Critics have attacked this by saying you need tremendous amounts
|> of mass to detect these _differential_ effects and by using statements
|> like "the weight of the doctor has a greater gravit. effect on you
|> at birth than the moon does." I've always bought these arguments.
|> HOWEVER, the recent autumnal equinox has given me pause. I was looking
|> at a picture of an egg balanced on its end and reading the caption to
|> the picture which stated that only during the vernal or autumnal equinox
|> may a fresh egg be balanced on its end, when I started wondering
|> how such a small amount of mass can detect this effect.
|>   We are finding more and more that conditions on the developing
|> fetus during the early period of gestation have a great impact
|> on future development. Even small alterations in the amniotic fluid
|> during the first trimester can cause birth defects.
|>    Can we be sure that the small variations in the gravitational pull
|> exerted on our bodies during our gestation will have no effect
|> on our future physical and mental makeup?
|> 

Though no proponent of astrology, I have to admit to the existence of an intricate web of
causality in day to day life. It is truly difficult to see how even the smallest action
can precipitate seemingly momentous events. Yet, with all the research in Chaos
theory pointing to the "butterfly effect" (sensitivity to initial conditions), and
the impossiblity of projecting things like the stock market or climate, it has to
make one think.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 04:12:01 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <5659@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>Maybe, but the original question was about the internal consistency of
>the Bible story.  So  *assuming* the arrival into Jerusalem and the Temple
>incident and the acrimonious face-to-face remarks about Pharisees all did
>happen, isn't it contradictory that the party that went out to arrest
>Jesus needed Judas to do the identification?

No, it's NOT contradictory.  When a judge issues a warrant for someone's
arrest, does he then accompany the police officer[s] detailed to make the
arrest?  Why do you insist that it must have been different in Jerusalem? 
Can't you get it through your skull that the people who ordered Jesus' arrest,
even if they could recognize him, were unlikely to have been involved in the
actual arrest?  That it would be useful to have someone with the arresting
party whom they were SURE could recognize him?

>Especially given the part of the story that the religious authorities
>had been thinking about a possibility for making an arrest.
>This question has only been answered by various posters by somehow inferring
>that the Bible story is not correct.  But my question was: how do people
>who assume the Bible story to be entirely correct resolve the contradiction?

Even if you DON'T assume the Bible story to be entirely correct, THERE IS NO
CONTRADICTION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Well known scientific facts
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:20:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Sep29192038
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

I am a ME PhD student, and as such, have suffered through quite a bit
of thermo and heat transfer, so I'll tackle this one.  

The post about the rise time is bogus.

Heat transfer equations are all based on absolute temperature scales.
These scales start at absolute zero (-273 C) and work their way up
from there.  Normal bdy temperature, in Kelvin, is about 310 K.  A
person with a blistering fever may be as high as 315 K.  The
difference is less than 1 percent, thus, to say that a fever exists if
the temperature rises in 20 seconds means that we must be able to time
this event to within 0.2 seconds accurately.

As was politely stated earlier, the original poster's contention is
pure bull shit.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Decency, security and liberty alike demand
Field Robotics Center,          | that the government officials be subjected to
Carnegie Mellon University      | the same rules of conduct that are commands to
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | the citizens.  In a government of laws the
(412) 268-3856                  | existence of the government will be imperiled
                                | if it fails to observe the law scrupulously...
The opinions expressed are mine | If the government becomes a law-breaker, it
and do not reflect the official | breeds contempt for law.  Louis Brandeis
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:02:50 GMT

meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes:

>You have to be very careful when you talk about % of a temperature.
>Have you ever heard a radio announcer say "The high today will be
>30, only half as warm as yesterday, when it was 60".  What is he
>talking about?  If the temperature were 0, is there no warmth?  If 
>the temperature is -10, how much warmth is there?

    -10 is twice as warm as -5, of course! Sheesh!

:-) for the mathematically impaired.


Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:39:07 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista


  All this business about what "a skeptic" is or is not is annoyingly
similar to the endless debates in alt.atheism about who is a true
atheist. Who cares what "a skeptic" is? I have no objection to fervent
fundamentalist Christians terming themselves "skeptics"; I have no
objection to "skeptics" wearing their pants back to front and declaring
themselves the secret masters of the universe. "sci.skeptic", I submit,
is of interest primarily in so far as it presents factual accounts of,
and reasonable arguments for or against, various matters at the fringe of
science or knowledge.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17378 talk.religion.misc:17587
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<1992Sep30.181626.25143@netcom.com>
	<1992Oct1.174521.25085@engage.pko.dec.com>
	<1992Oct5.233348.6805@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:33:26 GMT

>>>>> On 5 Oct 92 23:33:48 GMT, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) said:

Robert> How much enforcement power would be required to take some guy out,
Robert> stone him, and hand his body on a tree?

It depends on the size of the resulting riot, which would probably
have been large based on the crowd estimates taken on Palm Sunday.

BTW, my pastor explained the stoning of Stephen - after the
resurrection of Jesus, a law was passed for the Jews that stated any
Gentile who entered the Temple could be immediately stoned to death (a
slab has been found with an inscription to that effect).  However, a
"Gentile" for the purposes of this law would include an apostate Jew -
i.e., a Christian.  Stephen was stoned for statements showing that he
had apostasized, all in accord with the laws of the time, but using a
law that had not yet been passed while Jesus was alive.

He gave me some references for this off the top of his head, which I
will go find (like a *good* little skeptic).  Having done so, I will
send them out to any interested party.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "The Pharisees, therefore, said among
Integrated Measurement Systems |  themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  nothing?  Behold, the world is gone
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  after him." - John 12:19
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:55:51 GMT

In article <Sep.30.17.55.24.1992.8433@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>
>But assume that the Sanhedrin operated
>during this period in the same way that Jewish religious courts do now
>or that the Talmud describes.  But the situations are rather
>different.  First, it would not have been a purely religious body at
>that time.  It would have had a certain amount of political power.

The Sanhedrin was a secular AND religious court, simultaneously; the
distinction between religious and secular law did not exist. It tried
both criminal and religious matters. For example, see Josephus' account
(Antiquities) of Herod's trial before the Sanhedrin for executing some
bandits without trial. Jean Juster in "Les Juifs Dans L'Empire Romain"
(Paris, 1914, a book I haven't yet been able to locate) describes the
operation of and rationale for this dual system of Jewssh and Roman
law.


>Second, that power would have depended upon maintaining a relationship
>with Rome.  After 70 AD, you're dealing with groups whose situation
>encourages them to take a far more pristine approach to the Law.  I
>maintain that the members of the Sanhedrin in 30 AD would almost have
>to have been people who were willing to work with the Romans.
>Furthermore, it's not clear that Jesus' trial was a formal Jewish
>legal proceeding.  A number of commentators suggest that it was an
>informal hearing that was not intended to produce a legal verdict, but
>was aimed at figuring out the right way to handle the problem was.

According to "The Jewish Encyclopedia" (article, "Adultery"), the
Sanhedrin possessed the authority to impose death sentences until
the year 40 AD. According to Haim Cohn, an authority on Jewish law
both ancient and modern, the Sanhedrin both could and did impose
death sentences after Jesus' death.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Totally Unrelated Drivel....
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:35:56 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <1992Sep29.161032.15089@nosc.mil>, 
	clarkk@nosc.mil (Kevin D. Clark) writes:

>     The paragraph that I thought would be most
>     interesting to this group, however, was the final one which includes the
>     statements "The end of atheism and agnosticism became inevitable as soon as
>     computer calculations made improbable the odds that random natural
>     selection could be the sole explanation for the ever increasing intricacies
>     found in biology.  

I am not an expert, but it is my understanding that natural selection is
not random.  It's "survival of the fittest", not "survival of the randomly
selected".

>     Equally influential was the discovery of multiple
>     universes, which astronomers found at the macrocosmic level and physicists
>     detected in the microcosmic.  

He's using the past tense, but I don't think any of this has happened yet.
Surely any universe other than the one we're in would be undetectable by
definition.

>     Science thus established the current Age of
>     Faith, re-creating the Creator.  Nowadays, only the fool says in his heart,
>     'There is no God.'" (pg 61-any typos mine).  
> 

If the ends of atheism and agnosticism depend on astronomers detecting
other universes and on natural selection being random, then I think
agnosticism and atheism are here to stay.  I would be very interested
to know what Dr. Woops-I-deleted-his-name's area of expertise is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 29 Sep 1992 15:47 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1a92ttINN82t@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes...
> 
>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.

Actually, the most interesting way to measure the change is in terms of 
the quoted uncertainty of the original measurement which established the
98.6 degree value - which I do not know, of course.  That will be independent
of the temperature scale used, and a good indication of how fouled up
the original experiment really was.  If the original experimenter had quoted,
for example, 98.6 +/- .2, then I would say that the new result isn't really 
new at all, but merely a refinement.  Two sigma deviations are no big deal.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:21:33 EST

In article <1992Oct1.030539.14018@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
[...]                  NOTE MODIFICATIONS
>
> Actually, the (superstition,religion) can probably be objectively tested.
> That is, a study could be done to determine if (knocking on wood, religion)
> statistically changed the presence of what we think is (good luck, whatever).
> The control group would, of course, have an object that felt like
> (wood, religion) but was not.  If the study was scientific and conclusive, I'd
> bet you'd start the practice of (knocking on wood, religion)... :)

Reads the same way.......

GXKambic
sd

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
From: sgamble@crc.ac.uk (Steve Gamble x3293)
Subject: Re: SPRING HEEL JACK
Reply-To: sgamble@crc.ac.uk (Steve Gamble x3293)
Organization: MRC Human Genome Mapping Project Resource Centre, Harrow, UK
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 15:25:09 GMT

I was researching material for a lecture about early UFOs last weekend
and I am sure I saw some material relating to Spring Heel Jack. I will
check to see what I have

Steve

-- 
(Disclaimer: These are not my employer's opinions, they may not even be mine!)  
Steve Gamble, Computing Services, Clinical Research Centre and Human Genome  
Mapping Project Resource Centre, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3UJ, UK.
Phone: +44 81 869 3293  JANET: s.gamble@uk.ac.crc INTERNET: s.gamble@crc.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Idea for FAQ file
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:56:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.072316.18641@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes in part:
|> 
|> Can people think of famous examples, in the past, when
|> 
|> 
|> (a) The skeptic view was proved absolutely right,
|> 
|>     (eg. Turin Shroud, Piltdown Man etc etc)
I can't think of ANY thing where there was exactly ONE "the skeptical view".
:-)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<LEET.92Oct1100326@dove.ims.com> <5791@tuegate.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:08:15 GMT

>>>>> On 3 Oct 92 15:11:08 GMT, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) said:

Jan> In article <LEET.92Oct1100326@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:

Jan> It is reported in the Bible that afterwards Judas' remorse was
Jan> motivated by "I have betrayed an innocent" , which suggests that his
Jan> prime motive was his prior conviction that Jesus was not innocent. Moreover,
Jan> if his prime motive was greed, then why did he try to give back the
Jan> money?  I think these Biblical facts plead against greed as prime motive.

If Judas was indeed greedy, then he would certainly have a larger
purse to steal from when Jesus became King. Presumably Judas hoped to
speed things along by betraying Jesus, whereupon Jesus would declare
his Kingship in a supernatural way (Jesus's hand being forced by
Judas's betrayal).  When this didn't happen, and Judas saw his beat-up
Master being led off to Pilate, Judas realized that he was an
accomplice to a political murder.  Judas hanged himself to avoid
having the disciples hunt him down.

>You're Simon Peter.
Jan> [story as seen from Peter's point of view deleted]

Jan> I don't see what that has to do with: "Why did the authorities rely
Jan> on Judas for identification, especially if there were lots of more
Jan> reliable (from their point of view) chaps around, like umpteen irate
Jan> moneychangers."

The whole story of Jesus's arrest and trial makes sense if one keeps
in mind throughout that there were a lot of excited/excitable people
in Jerusalem for Passover, that the authorities (Romans) were fearful
of riots because riots look bad for one's re-election bid :-), that
riots tended to bring in *lots* of troops, etc.  By using Judas for
the identification, the arresting party could get in and take Jesus
while avoiding much resistance from the disciples.  (This was the
point of the Simon Peter story - the arresting party hoped to use the
element of surprise to get in, grab their man, and get away.)  Simon
Peter and the others would not suspect anything until Jesus had been
identified, unlike the situation of an irate moneychanger wandering in
amongst a bunch of sleeping disciples.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this
Integrated Measurement Systems |  world; if my kingdom were of this world, then
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  would my servants fight, that I should not be
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  not from here." - John 18:36           THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:28:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.191510.4489@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <schnitzi.717877881@eola.cs.ucf.edu>, schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>>>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.
>> 
>> How would you explain the fact, then, that medical conditions which
>> affect our brain (accidents, strokes, drugs) also can affect our
>> "intellect and reasoning ability"?  Do these things damage our
>> souls as well?
>> 
>> Mark Schnitzius
>> schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
>> Univ. of Central Florida
>
>Also, when does the 'soul' enter the body?  At conception?  If so, I have
>a major problem with that!
>
>Sue

Just curious, but why would you have a problem with that?  Is the
exact date important to the understanding of the soul?  Would the
definition of the soul change if it was infused at conception
rather than day 2 or day 5?  If you are referring to the abortion
question, then perhaps you can see how someone could think that
abortion was truly murder if they believed that the embryo's were
truly human in the most important aspect, the presence of the
soul. 

-- 
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: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: Sampling and human hearing
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 03:20:30 GMT

In article <717318277.4@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG> Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
>Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com
> 
>In article <1992Sep19.005247.14162@u.washington.edu>, mpark@milton.u.
>washington.edu (Michael Park) wrote as follows:
>> [...]
>> lab had determined that, although pure tones above ~20kHz are indeed
>> inaudible, listeners could detect "nuances" in music up to ~35kHz....
>
>Yes, nobody did answer that, but what the heck are "nuances"?  [...]

Well, imagine a "pure tone" (i.e. sine wave) at 12kHz.
Now imagine a square wave at 12kHz. All its harmonics are at 24kHz and
above, and hence "inaudible". If you can tell the difference anyway
(probably manifesting itself as a harsher sound), that would be a 
candidate for the term "nuance". (And if you can't, it wouldn't :-)

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic