HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Need Help on ALIENS stuff!!
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:51:48 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 <Bz913I.8LM@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
=Tough?  Impossible.  The sheer number of star systems in the Universe
=indicates that if the probability of a given star system supporting life
=is, say, one in a billion billion, then there are countless planets out
=there with alien life on them.  Read "Extraterrestrial Civilizations" by
=Isaac Asimov.

Just how did you happen upon the "one in a billion billion" probability for
life developing in a star system?  The only direct evidence we have simply says
that the probability is non-zero;  it doesn't put any non-zero lower bound on
it.  Any numbers you choose to pick are purely arbitrary in the absence of
further evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Need Help on ALIENS stuff!!
Keywords: aliens
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:11:05 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <Bz913I.8LM@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:

>>  I am against the existence of extraterrestrial life....
>>  It is tough, huh???
>
>Tough?  Impossible.  The sheer number of star systems in the Universe
>indicates that if the probability of a given star system supporting life
>is, say, one in a billion billion, then there are countless planets out
>there with alien life on them.  Read "Extraterrestrial Civilizations" by
>Isaac Asimov.


"Impossible"?  Hardly.  We have no good idea how hard it is for life
or intelligence to arise around a star (estimates such as go into the
Drake equation are just opinions dressed up to look impressive; our
understanding of the origin of life is still scandalously poor, with
the major steps still missing.)  There are only a finite number of
stars in the observable universe, and therefore if the probability of
life arising is sufficiently small then we are likely the only ones.
You picked 10^-18 as a probability, but for all we know it could be
10^-27, or 10^-100.


	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21452 alt.messianic:3655
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:35:58 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 <1992Dec16.170858.1206@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>, dac@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (David A Cooke) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.132505.165352@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au writes:
>>Do you REALLY believe that ?  You are falling for the common mistake of
>>judging Christianity not by its principles, but by the actions of those who
>>claim to be Christians.  There are those who generally follow the teachings of
>>Christ and fail, and there are those who deliberately ignore the Christ's
>>teachings but claim to be Christians anyway.  
>
>	Considering that many of these horrors were encouraged and carried
>out by the Catholic church and the other churches that subsequently split
>off from it, I find it hard to just attribute it to individuals.  After
>all, these are the institutions that claim to represent G-d on Earth.

Before the Bible-thumpers respond, repeat their mantra after me (preferably
with as much whining as possible):
	But THEY weren't *REAL* Christians.
Good luck in getting an operational definition of Christianity, though. Face
it, people like Bennet simply define Christianity as whatever they happen to
approve of at the moment.  The definition changes from day to day, and
definitely from Christian to Christian.  These jackasses could've given Reagan
lessons in slipperiness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21433 alt.folklore.urban:31380 alt.atheism:23818 alt.feminism:6133
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Uri's Magic
Date: 18 Dec 92 07:39:40 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <bgm21+r@rpi.edu> gallas2@bray1a.its.rpi.edu (Sean Michael Gallagher) writes:

>I really hope this isn't true.  I have never been one to underestimate the
>stupidity of a Congresscritter, but this is too much.

I doubt it myself.  It doesn't seem impossible to me that someone in
the government would call up Geller, but I can't see NASA cooperating.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     Finally, Zippy drives his 1958 RAMBLER METROPOLITAN into the
 |warren@      faculty dining room.
/ nysernet.org
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Arnica: Homeopathic
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:10:33 GMT
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo

In article <1gljjbINN970@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.161944.7386@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>>Arnica Montana is indeed homeopathic and is used externally diluted
>>to an 8% mixture.
>
>Hell, that's not dilute by homeopathic standards.  For homeopathy, a reasonable
>dilution is on the order of .00000000000000008%

The question I am interested in is "how does Arnica work?" If it works
by stimulating the body to heal itself, but doesn't follow homeopathic
dilution guidelines, I'd be willing to call it a homeopathic-like substance.
If it is found not to have any homeopathic-like qualities, I'd be willing
to simply call it a remedy, no problem. But, I do know that it is sold
as a homeopathic substance, so I do know that some consider it
homeopathic.


---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban,alt.atheism,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Ritual Abuse Taskforce Alleges Poisoning
Date: 16 Dec 1992 21:27:45 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 <1992Dec16.174708.10837@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>I'd like to find out more about this - it sounds marvellous! What is the
>source for this? I suspect that the chiropractors may have performed
>their OWN "laboratory tests": something like "See how easy it is to
>pull down their arm? They MUST have been poisoned!!!!!!"

The story was published in the _Los_Angeles_Times_ sometime during the last
week or so.  I'll check to see whether I kept 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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg)
Subject: Re: Read this book or else
Organization: Tera Computer Company, Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:16:42 GMT

In article <1ggpcvINN1l2@mirror.digex.com> steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:
>  I can't pull the sugar pack gag; while playing with the cheap junk in my
>copy, I tore open the fake sugar packet.#p>{
>  Either I was possessed by the Ghost of Superman, or I got a defective
>fake sugar packet.  <g>
>

They're all defective.  I heard Penn a couple of nights ago on NPR
talking about the sugar packet screwup.  Apparently they were made in
Taiwan, are easily opened, and filled with some slightly irritating
chloride salt (was it cobalt chloride? I can't remember).  Anyway,
you're supposed to throw the old one away, call the publisher (Random
House) at (800)726-0600, and have a new one sent to you.

As Penn tells it, the best part is that they have no way of knowing if
you really have the book, so everyone who wants a gag sugar pack
should simply call the 800 num,ber and ask for one!

Erik
From: pirtle@sri.com (Dave Pirtle)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Devil Drives a UFO.
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:57:21 GMT
Organization: sri.com

In article <71561@cup.portal.com>, John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com wrote:
> 
> John Winston. I figure God has a sense of humor. He made us didn't he-
> she?

Tch-tch if, as you imply, there's only one god, it has no sex and the
proper
pronoun to use is "it".  The use of he-she shows a certain lack of
knowledge
of the language.  One could construe a lack of knowledge in other fields.
Of
course, babbling is a common cover-up for that lack.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:43:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.053457.14466@udel.edu> mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.165647.1043@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> 
>kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>>
>>Is there actually some guidleline that states that in order to be considered
>>homeopathic, a substance must be diluted to a strength of x%? If so,
>>what is x? Does anybody know?
>>
>>Arnica is prescribed by homeopathics as a homeopathic substance and is diluted
>>to a solution of 8% (external form).
>>
>>It seems to me that the more important idea to focus on is the way in which
>>a homeopathic substance theoretically remedies an ailment. If the substance
>>irritates the body into defending itself, and thus indirectly attacking
>>the ailment, the dilution strength should only be considered when insuring
>>that the substance is weak enough not to cause the patient problems. It
>>seems that dilution strengths would vary widely depending on the substance.
>>
>
>As previously posted by several people, most homeopathic remedies are 
>generally diluted to the extent that it is highly unlikely that the 
>dosage you are taking does not contain *even a single molecule* of
>the substance that is supposedly effecting the cure.  This rules out
>the hypothesis that _for these incredibly diluted remedies_ there is
>any correlation between the properties of that substance and the 
>ailment that it is supposed to cure.  This doesn't mean that they don't
>work through other means (e.g. a placebo effect).

Yes, I have heard people say this, but is there any definition of
homeopathic substances which gives specific dilution percentages? I'm
looking for a definition, not an opinion. The definition I found said
"minute quantities". Is there a more specific definiton?

>Now, with regard to remedies that are on the order of a few percent
>strength, there *may* be an effect such as you are describing.  If you
>want to call this homeopathic, that's fine, but you'll have to distin-
>guish between the ~8% concentration remedies and the 0% ones in order
>to have any argument at all.  

I'm personally interested in finding remedies that work. If 8% is outside
homeopathic bounds, but works in a homeopathic manner (irritant that
causes the body to respond), I'm willing to call it a homeopathic-like
substance.

>Yes, in other words, dilution strength will vary widely, but it will not
>likely be lower than say, 0.001%.  Traditional homeopathic remedies
>are twenty five orders of magnitude lower in concentration, so add
>twenty five or so zeroes to the above number.  Now do you see  the
>difference?

Sure, but I'd just like to know where these figures are coming from.

---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:28:11 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Dec14.154142.10849@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>
>What bothers me about Homeopathy (based on my limited contact with
>it - see below) is not that they differ on how to treat a disease,
>but that they seem to deny that there ARE diseases.
>
>My chiropractor has a set of books in his waiting room - all 
>anti-MDs, some of which were published by Homeopathic insitutes
>and such.  According to the parts I've skimmed while waiting:

[several examples of viral diseases and cancer deleted]

Hahnemann's theory of diseases was that they all constitute 
a disturbance (Verstimmung) of the Life Force (Dynamis). He also
was very symptom-directed. Later in his life he proposed his
psora-theory. To wit: there are only three basic diseases, 
syphilis, gonorrhoe and scabies; he used different names and the
latter was called psora (itch).   All diseases are caused by one
or more of these complaints attacking inner organs.
Most homeopaths don't believe the psora theory anymore or have 
changed the meaning.  In homeopathic theory socalled miasmata
also played a role, and some modern homeopaths will consider 
modern medications, corticosteroids and vaccinations as miasmata
(evil intangible influences from outside that contribute to the
Verstimmung of the Dynamis).

The stuff about cancer caused by vaccination sounds a bit like 
the support some anthroposophic physicians give to their 
opposition to vaccination, namely that (according to one 
investigation) cancer patients turned out to have been as a child
less frequent victim of typical (viroidal) children's diseases than
a comparable control group.  This is interpreted as: going through
the actual disease as a child stimulates the immune system so that
in a later age cancer is better fought off by it than in the cases
that didn't get the actual disease.

Don't hold me responsible for this reasoning, I'm just reporting.

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Miracles
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:04:10 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 <1992Dec15.190714.1@stsci.edu>, zellner@stsci.edu writes:
=> =    ...       We believe that God, not man, makes the rules concerning
=> =virtue and vice, even as he made the laws of physics.  What would you
=> =think of someone who made up laws of physics by pondering the alternatives
=> =and deciding for themselves what would be good or bad?
=> 
=> I'd say they were doing good experimental science.  As opposed to the old
=> technique of looking up what Aristotle had to say on the matter.
=
=I take your point.  From an astronomer's point of view, however, experimental
=astronomy is often hard to do.  So is experimental theology.

So tell me, does that mean that you advocate doing astronomy by looking things
up in a book, rather than looking at the sky?  It seems to me that the
religious way of doing things is the former.  The same mindset that leads one
to look to the bible for answers to matters of "virtue and vice" can lead to
doing the same for matters of astronomy.  E.g., the church's attitude toward
the Galilean satellites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21282 sci.philosophy.tech:4549
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Testability
Date: 11 Dec 92 15:11:55 EST

In article <Bz3vsy.IKC@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.101212.9469@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
> |> 
> |> BTW, could you please define your criteria, besides evidence, for theory
> |> acceptance and rejection.  I would like to understand what they are.
Forgot to thank you for the references before.
> I'm afraid the translation of this request is "Would you please provide
> the content of a good course in the philosophy of science?" 

Maybe it is, but it seems to be at the core of a lot of the discussions related
to evidence and proof of concepts in this newsgroup.
> I can't do
> that in this medium.  The issues are complex and require at least some
> foundations in logic, epistemology, and some history of science.  When
> I *did* teach courses I taught them primarilly from the perspective that
> the *central* issue in the philosphy of science was that of criteria for
> theory acceptance and rejection.

OK.  Then that is one of the central issues here also.  Within getting into
the words again, I see evidence derived from agreed upon definitions and tests
for falsibility as central to those criteria.  
> What I *can* do is point to some places where these issues are discussed.
> I already mentioned Conant's books for some historical background.  At
> the risk of repeating myself (at least in some newsgroups), the following
> are a good start:
[...]
> One important criterion in theory acceptance/rejection is what I have called
> "inter-theoretic support" -- informally, the support (direct or indirect)
> that one theory lends to another.  For example, the oxidation theory had
> such support from the emerging atomic/molecular theory, while the phlogiston
> theory did not.  The negative weight hypothesis of the phlogiston theory
> was somewhat at odds with other other (physical) theories, and taking it
> seriously would have required rather gross revision of those theories.
[...lots of ref info...thanks again...]

Theories would only seem to lend support to one another if there is
reproducible supporting independent evidence supporting each one.  The
"inter-theoretic support" if you will, requires that the theories "fit"
together.  Is consistency evidence?  No.  But it seems to make two theories
become parts of one larger theory.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

George Kambic
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Unidentified Flaming Objects -- ball lightning?
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:18:31 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>
>Quoting p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) in article <2933004560.1.p00168@psilink.com>:
>>
>>I have seen ball lightning. (Do I hear skeptical snickering?)  
>
>Why?  In what respect is "ball lightening" an extraordinary theory the
>way, say, telepathy is?  (A) it looks like the sort of thing that's going to
>admit to a perfectly straightforward physical explanation once we figure
>out what it is, and (B) there are good witnesses for it, including one
>sighting on a plane which was witnessed by quite a lot of people.
>
>Being skeptical of everything that isn't already well understood gives
>ammunition to pseudoscientists and mystics, because you end up being
>wrong quite a lot.
>  __                                _____
>\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
>/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul."  \X/ 

I didn't expect to have to defend a simple attempt at humor.  

A.  I was the only withness (an obligatory snicker), and no credentials
of any sort are associated with my name that would establish me as a
reliable authority.

B.  Ball lightning has been filmed bouncing around inside a US submarine,
too, but the questions posted here recently indicate that the existence
of ball lightning has not been established to everyone's satisfaction.
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to snicker until something
better than my flimsy testimony is available -- it's _de rigueur_ 
for skeptics with a cynical disposition.

Even though ball lightning exists (a fact proven to my satisfaction),
the incident I related may have never taken place, and the cynical
would snicker on general principles. (Feel free to flame my casual use 
of the word "proven", but those who cannot spell "lightning" are not 
likely favorites against me in a battle of semantics.)


I had hoped that the account of my experience would relate in some way
to the question of globes of ball lightning flying through the air.  I
tried to suggest that the phenomena described in the newspaper report were
globes of ball lightning borne by the wind, and that no paranormal
explanations of any kind were necessary to explain the events.  I tried
to describe what I saw so that someone with a knowledge of static electric
fields could explain in more depth what I had seen, and even, perhaps,
how the pines themselves may have been both an incubator and natural
containment for the lightning.  Perhaps under other circumstances, those
self-same globes could have been blown free across the landscape instead
of just drifting down and exploding in a small area.

I can make nothing of your last sentence.  Why would anyone's skepticism,
merited or not, be ammunition for pseudoscientists?  Are you suggesting
that to doubt a given theory or fact would allow charlatans to make a claim
such as "Scientists doubt theory of evolution." in order to put their
own doubly-doubted nonsense at the same level?  Just a guess.  If that's
what you meant, I disagree -- would that pseudoscientists were armed so
lightly.  


-jim tims