HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientific
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:32:43 GMT

In article <1455@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
wrote as follows:

>>>Question: if scientists can't get a mundane fact correct such as
>>>the average human temperature for over 100 years (the study that
>>>established the average temperature was done over a century ago
>>>with I believe quite a large sample rate), what makes them think
>>>that any of their other more complex "facts" are accurate?  Please,
>>>this is only a genuine query.
>
> Where was this average temperature measured?  The average temperature
> is not the same throughout the body.  Inside the body the temperature
> is higher than on the surface of the skin.  I can find a spot where
> the average temperature is 98.6 degrees and another where the average
> temperature is 98.2 degrees.  Which is more accurate?  (Don't even
> think of averaging the two different spots, that does make sense for
> temperature!)

One might note, further, that "scientist makes one-off measurement and
finds conventional wisdom wrong" is far more likely to be published in
"the Post" than is "twenty other scientists make one-off measurements
and find conventional wisdom correct, after all", even aside from
questions of accuracy.
 
Cheers,
Rick M.

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Some Real Physics (Was: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology)
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:46:54 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes...
|>Yes, we can be sure-- when the gravitational pull of the doctor/midwife
|>who delivered you is greatly exceeds the total gravitational pull of the
|>other planets.
|Come on. This is just not true.  Have any of you gugs who believe this
|actually tried to work out the numbers?   Geez.

The problem is that this is mistated.  Properly, it should be that "the
gravitation _tidal_ force of the doctor..."  (actually the tidal gradient,
to be fussy).

Since this goes as r^-3, when you do the numbers you see that the doctor
wins big.

>(2) Gravitation is so weak that the only significant sources of gravity are
>the few huge objects in our solar neighborhood.  Small objects (doctors, 
>skeptics, astrologers, etc.) are negligible, even at close range.

To anticipate what will obvious be your next approach, why should we
believe that the tidal force to be any less significant than the
gravitational force.

N
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:20:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.233348.6805@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.174521.25085@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>>
>>But Herod came back with an army and imposed his own control by force.
>>Sanhedrin would never be the same after Herod became the king (not
>>emperor) of Judea.
> ...
>In any case, by the time of the trial of Jesus, Herod was dead at least
>30 years, and his kingdom was split among his successors.

But his partisans (the so-called Herodians) were still the political
Establishment at that time.  Sanhedrin never regained their lost power.

>>  ... The internal division within the Sanhedrin
>>also hindered its effectiveness in carrying out its verdict.
>
>How much enforcement power would be required to take some guy out,
>stone him, and hand his body on a tree?

It usually took a public riot/rally to do the job.  But in any event,
the trial of Jesus was run by the high priest and his party.  The
high priest, being the appointee of the Romans and the traitor to
the Jewish nation, had no reason to do it the Jewish way.

>>The high priests had the backing of the Romans and didn't really
>>care much about the Law of Moses and the Jewish tradition.  
>
>???????

Apparently you are not aware of the fact that the high priests at
that time were appointed by the Romans.  Whosoever came up with the
highest bid got that job.  They were usually heavily Hellenized and
had no respect for the Law of Moses or the Jewish tradition.  As they
controlled the Temple - the official religious institution of Judaism
in those days, they tried their best to pull Judaism in the direction
of Hellenism, and in this endeaver, they were bitterly opposed by the
conservative elements with the Judaism.


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:49:10 GMT

In article <1aldkeINNk87@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.224417.23923@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>>You mean to tell me that certain logical conclusions don't fall
>>>>into place for you if you accept the premise that a Supreme Being
>>>>(god) created the heavens and the earth?
>
>>>But knowing only that "(god) created the heavens and the earth" tells
>>>me nothing of it's purpose or nature.
>>
>>I'll start you off...
>
>OH BOY!  He gives us two total non-sequiturs:
>
>>1) We are not alone in this universe.
>
>Why should we believe he stayed around?  Or that he's paying any attention to
>us?
>
>>2) Someone created us, presumably for a purpose.
>                        ------------------------
>A second non-sequitur, though in this case, John *DOES* try to sneak in an
>extra assumption as if it were in his original statement.
>
>>Maybe I'll be curious and try to find out what that purpose is.
>>
>>3) <Come on, I know you can fill in the blanks> :)
>>
>>If nothing else, it certainly can change the way we look at the universe.
>
>Judging from your case, it blinds us to the ancillary assumptions we're making.
>
>>My point was to subject everyone to all the conclusions that it meant to me.
>>I was only trying to show that just accepting that premise can lead one
>>to question and search in areas that they might not have otherwise done.
>
>Why?  There are a number of atheists involved in SETI.  Please note that, if
>this hypothetical God should choose to try to communicate with us by mundane
>means, then he's covered by SETI.  If he doesn't choose to communicate with us
>by mundane means, then how do we go about searching?  Please try not to offend
>too many people with different religions than yours when you give us your
>unique answer to this question).
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

*Sigh*, all I said was that accepting a certain assumption leads one to 
draw certain conclusions.  I never said that those conclusions could only
be drawn from that assumption.  (You know of course, that if P implies Q, then
it does not follow that Q implies P.)
-- 
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: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Some Real Physics (Was: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology)
Date: 30 Sep 1992 11:49 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 <BvCL3L.IEB@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes...
>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. 
> 
>Yes, we can be sure-- when the gravitational pull of the doctor/midwife
>who delivered you is greatly exceeds the total gravitational pull of the
>other planets.

Come on. This is just not true.  Have any of you gugs who believe this
actually tried to work out the numbers?   Geez.

Sun vs. Doctor:

Doctor:  100 Kg at 2 feet from the baby.
Sun:     2E30 Kg at 9.3E7 miles from the baby.

The gravitiational force, G, of the Sun is down by a factor of 
ratio of distances squared = ((9.3E7*5280)/2)^2 = 6E22.  That's a big
loss due to distance.  On the other hand, G for the sun is larger due
to it's HUGE mass by a factor of the ratio of the masses = (2E30/100) = 2E28.
So the bottom line is that the Sun has a pull more than 300,000 times the
pull of the doctor.  

Moon vs. Doctor:

Moon: 	7E22 Kg at 384,000 Km from the baby.

I'll spare the calculation, which any of you can do.  The bottom line
is that the moon pulls more than 10,000 more strongly than the doctor.
You all should have realized this - after all, your doctor's mass can't
affect the tides, even at close distances, but the moon's mass can.

What about the Planets?   I don't know the distances and masses of the 
planets off the top of my head, so I can't do the math.  I suspect that
Mars, Venus, and Jupiter will be competitive with the doctor.  The others
are probably too far away or too small.

What's the lesson to be learned here?  I see two:

(1) All you folks who call yourselves skeptics and then swallow some supposed
"scientific" truths without checking simple things for yourselves are 
just as bad as the astrologers.

(2) Gravitation is so weak that the only significant sources of gravity are
the few huge objects in our solar neighborhood.  Small objects (doctors, 
skeptics, astrologers, etc.) are negligible, even at close range.

-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: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Famous Last Words
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:11:42 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <2025@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.032716.5936@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>>"I estimate there is a world market for about five computers."
>>                                          Thomas Watson, Head of IBM, 1943.
>
>I don't think that this was Watson's personal estimate.  I think it was
>from a market survey conducted by his company.  The point still stands
>though.
>

It is kind of well known that after 1945 Philips (the CD-company) decided
not to go into computers (even though they had a working model in their
research lab), also because of the estimated small production volume.

Of course, if they had tried, they might not have had the channels to
sell them. 

JWN

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 22:35:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.021103.2694@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.041948.15142@bilver.uucp> dickb@bilver.uucp (Dick Biow) writes:
>>I don't believe the money-changer incident happened. Nobody was allowed to 
+carry a weapon, like the whips John has Jesus take with him, except for the 
+guards.
>>Jesus never would have been allowed to approach the money-tables, any more 
+than
>>a robber would.
(Dick, could you keep your line lengths below ~76 characters, for the sake
of those of us with 80-column screens? Thanks!)

>Surely, the place of business where one purchases items must have had facilities
>for changing money.  It probably was very similar to your typical bazaar or
>marketplace.

I agree. I've read that Jesus' complaint was that the people concerned were
not staying within their allotted area, but were encroaching on a (more)
holy area.

>  As for the whip, a piece of rope is very easy to come by and ...

That's the way I always read it, too.

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:57:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.203541.20671@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>: >
>: >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 the soul enters the "body" at conception, that would be when the
>ovum combines with a sperm, right?  Now that single cell, which has a
>soul, undergoes mitosis and splits into two cells.  If we physically
>separate these two cells they will each develope into a complete
>organism.  Which of the two organisms got the soul?  Does each have
>half a soul?
>
>The identical tiwns of the world want to know.

IMHO, you have a good point.  But then, you're really talking
about hours here not days, right?  I really don't think it changes
anything about the understanding of the soul to know the exact
hour when it joins the body.  Will the identical twins of the
world be satisfied if we say that the soul is infused into the
body soon after conception? :)

Please note that the above is all my opinion.  I'm sure that someone could
say that:

a) twins are a special case
		or
b) there is a second infusion

and still have the same basic understanding of the soul.  I guess
the point I'm trying to make is does it really matter?

>grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |


-- 
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: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:26:54 GMT

ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark) writes:
>
> HOWEVER .......... 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 .........

Yes, this occurs almost entirely at the Equinox as stated, primarily because
this is when people do this sort of thing to amuse themselves.

About 10 years ago (on an Equinox) I stood a dozen eggs on our kitchen 
counter.  The next part of the experiment was waiting for them to topple
as the equinox effect passed.  Some eggs were still standing more than
two weeks later.  Those that fell did so due to natural causes (e.g. 
chopping potatos nearby) while someone was in the room.

CWR
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:49:35 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <5659@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.041948.15142@bilver.uucp> dickb@bilver.uucp (Dick Biow) writes:
>#I don't believe the money-changer incident happened. Nobody was allowed to
>#carry a weapon, like the whips John has Jesus take with him, except for the
>#guards.
>#Jesus never would have been allowed to approach the money-tables, any more than
>#a robber would.
>
>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?
>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?
>

Just a thought: maybe the arrest party were just hired henchman, so didn't
necessarily know what he looks like.

>Incidentally,  the version John gives of the arrest doesn't involve the
>Judas kiss. That's another contradiction.

Well, it could be argued that an omission isn't quite the same thing as a
contradiction.

>
>JWN
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:27:57 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Sep28.222319.13990@ims.com> chapman@ims.com (Dave Chapman) writes:

>The measurement of normal body temperature was off by about 0.5%.


What do you mean by 0.5%?

0.5% of 100?

0.5% of 37?

0.5% of 310?

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?

_____________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: <None>
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:16:17 EST
 <Sep18.050933.60537@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> <1092@tdat.teradata.COM> <1992Sep25.001922.17712@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep25.001922.17712@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
> In article <1092@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>In article <Sep18.050933.60537@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>>|In article <GERRY.92Sep17120955@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>>|What *I* want to know is how come all the pro-choicers are against capital
>>|punishment?
>>|
>>I'm not.
> 
> Me either.
> 

Neither am I.
Never have been against capitol punishment.  I consider it the best deterrent
against repeat offenders.  If you fry 'em they'll never do it again!

Sue

>>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
> 
> 	Max G. Webb
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:44:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.053346.25405@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.030539.14018@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.193930.2799@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>You mean to tell me that certain logical conclusions don't fall
>>into place for you if you accept the premise that a Supreme Being
>>(god) created the heavens and the earth?
>
>
>But knowing only that "(god) created the heavens and the earth" tells
>me nothing of it's purpose or nature. For that, you need to study the
>religious manuals and doctrines. Usually, parents teach this to their
>children before they are old enough to understand it. For most it catches
>on, and they will either belive, or at least go through the motions. Some
>ask questions right off, and never become believers. But this is more
>a measure of human interaction than proof of god, or evidence of purpose
>or the nature of the universe.

I'll start you off...

1) We are not alone in this universe.

2) Someone created us, presumably for a purpose.  Maybe I'll be curious and
try to find out what that purpose is.

3) <Come on, I know you can fill in the blanks> :)

If nothing else, it certainly can change the way we look at the universe.

>
>If it is self-evident to you, then why not share your wisdom.
>

My point was to subject everyone to all the conclusions that it meant to me.
I was only trying to show that just accepting that premise can lead one
to question and search in areas that they might not have otherwise done.

>>
>>Actually, the superstition can probably be objectively tested.
>>That is, a study could be done to determine if knocking on wood
>>statistically changed the presence of what we think is good luck.
>>The control group would, of course, have an object that felt like
>>wood but was not.  If the study was scientific and conclusive, I'd
>>bet you'd start the practice of knocking on wood... :)
>
>No, I was asking if you had any such proof of the validity of religion.
>And I still do not see what differentiates religion from superstition.
> 

My point was that a religion is valid irrespective of any
scientific proof.  This is quite unlike the superstition in the
example above whose validity can be scientifically tested.

>payner@netcom.com
>
>


-- 
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