HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Scientific Theory (was: Re: UFO's
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 17:28:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:

[Stuff deleted]

>And, in fact, it is not even a very GOOD theory of how science works.  It
>is in fact an ideological claim about how science "should" work.  

See Ronald Giere, _Understanding Scientific Reasoning_ (Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, 1984), for a good description of many of the various methods
scientists use.

>If you want to know how people make decisions, you have to look to psychology.
>In the case of scientific reasoning, you could do worse than reading
>I. J. Good (or more recent) on Bayesing (sp?) statistics.  This model 
>views hypotheses as being believed with some probability from 0 to 1 (not
>just T or F).  New evidence is combined with the existing belief with a 
>"weight".  Weekly held beliefs may be swayed by small amounts of contrary 
>evidence, hypotheses either very strongly held or with lots of evidence 
>in their favor require really strong or a really large amount of counter 
>evidence to "move" the belief.  Almost no single piece of evidence has 
>high enough weight to overthrow any but the most trivial hypothesis,
>a converging series of findings, however, multiply together and can "move"
>the probability of a hypothesis.

>Note that this is a psychological _theory_ of belief, although there is
>decent evidence that it may well represents how (at least some) scientists 
>think.

See also Frederick Grinnell, _The Scientific Attitude_ (Westview Press,
1987).  He summarizes the "scientific attitude" this way:

"What distinguishes the scientific attitude from other attitudes is the
assumption of universal, intersubjective validity... If this goal is to
be reached, it must be possible, in principle, for an investigator's
observations and hypotheses to be studied and verified intersubjectively.
Therefore, individual investigators do science with the expectation that
other investigators will be able to make the same observations and reach
the same conclusions. " [p. 124]

Philosophers have long tried to define a single, universal Scientific
Method used by all scientists, but no such animal has been identified.
This does not mean they don't use scientific methods.  Rather, that the
ideal SM of observation -> hypothesis -> experiment -> theory is something
of a myth.  This is probably at least partially a result of the weighted
belief you described.
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: UFO's
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:43:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

alanj@dadd.ti.com (Alan Jones) writes:

>In article anson@netcom.com, anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>>
>>The limit of the speed of light in a vacuum has been experimentally
>>verified countless times since Einstein published his theories.  Hopefully,
>>a physicist out there reading this can provide a better explanation than
>>I can.

>Uh, how does one experimentally "prove" that the speed of light cannot be
>exceeded (by light or anything else?)?  Sounds to me like you're trying to
>prove a negative, which is most cases is impossible.

As I said, a physicist could provide a better explanation.

I don't have specific cases to cite, but I think that most experiments
in particle physics would yield different results if the speed-of-light
limit *wasn't* a limit.  Keep in mind just what this "limit" really is:
To accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light requires infinite
energy.  Since infinite energy is, well, more energy than is available
in the universe, it is physically impossible to accelerate to lightspeed.

Beyond this, you'll have to consult some good references in physics.

However, I would like to see you prove that proving a negative is
impossible. :-)  [Yes, yes, "in most cases"]
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:01:30 GMT

In article <714580614.0@fquest.FidoNet>, Earth.Angel@fquest.FidoNet.Org (Earth Angel) writes:
|> 
|> The idea to set a video recorder to tape abductions is a good one, but one that
|> has been tried -- without luck.  Read the book _Intruders_ by Budd Hopkins and
|> he gives a detailed account of a woman who set a video recorder pointed at her
|> bed all night every night.  The equipment was simply "blitzed" while she was
|> being abducted and she never got anything on tape.  Actually she wasn't doing
|> it  so much to get evidence as to use it as a deterrent.  She wanted the
|> abductions to stop.  Didn't work.  
|> 
|> Another man I met found an implant in his penis.  I was able to get it out, and
|> it looked like a small plastic conical shaped thing.  He watched as it
|> disintegrated in his hand.  This is a man who is currently a high school
|> teacher and formerly a police officer.
|> 
|> The only physical evidence I have heard of people being able to obtain is
|> photographs of burned "craters" in their yards and scars, such as scooplike
|> scars, on their bodies.
|> 
|> People have tried to take photographs and tape record the "visitors."  None
|> that I know of have had any success.  Not surprising, considering they can read
|> minds as well as have extremely advanced technology.
|> 
|>                           Earth angel

Budd Hopkins is not my idea of an unbiased or accurate source of 
information.  Anyway, the short summary of what you say is that there
is no physical evidence, and there isn't likely to be any because the
abductors are SO clever and SO advanced that they leave no traces.

Could you explain how it is that, with all their sophistacation and 
desire for secrecy, the abductors allow someone as unsophisticated 
and technologically backward as Budd Hopkins to trumpet their secrets 
to the world and to organize resistance?

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From:  (Jesse M. Goldman)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: If....
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:19:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.paranormal
Organization: Univ. of Penn

If you can read minds then what am I thinking?

....Wrong, it was a giant electric potato.

=============================================================================
=        Who is he to Hecuba or Hecuba to he                               
=
=                                     -Hamlet (Bill Shakespeare)           
=
=============================================================================
From: szucheng@cheng.Eng.Sun.COM (Szu-Cheng Sun)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: what a joke!
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:50:01 GMT
Reply-To: szucheng@cheng.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: cheng


In article 78253@ut-emx.uucp, giskard@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Daneel Olivaw) writes:

>What I maybe should have said is how can you convince a person who is 
>absolutely skeptical(sp?)  [LIKE ME] without proof? I have tried (if you will)
>for years to experience such a thing-- and of course nothing.  I have had
>my palms read by a so called psychic and the reading was so vague that it
>could be interpreted in any number of ways.  I was told certain things that
>are, in viewing my future, totally unrealistic.

I agree that you made a correct conclusion base on your experience. However, your 
experience might be limited. I don't know with whom did you have experience with 
but let me share mine. 

A few years ago, one of my friend had shown me a paper which he got from so called
"Iron Abacus" (translation) fortune-teller about 20 years ago. Everything happened 
to him in the pass 20 years is just like what had been written down on that paper. 
Don't misunderstand that everything happened to him was written on that paper, 
however, most of the major events were.

I am not suggest that every fortune-teller can do such a good prediction. However, 
I do think you might had experience with a wrong person. (By the way, as far as I 
understand, palm reading itself is not accurate anyway.)

>As for UFO's, I used to really believe in them until I had taken this
>astronomy course called 'Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence'.  It is
>very apparant to me that even if the infinitesimal chance that life could
>develope somewhere, there is no way in hell that they could develope and 
>contact us  ( even if they did, it wouldn't be in our life time).
>


Modern science explain a lot of things, however, there are more things we don't 
know than we know. Remember, modern science is based on experience, anything out 
of general experience is not understood yet.

Szu-Cheng Sun
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:59:03 GMT

In article <21103@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, tzf@csl.biosci.arizona.edu (Theron Friedman) writes in part:
|> In article <1992Aug26.170130.28756@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
|> 
|> |> 
|> |> Could you explain how it is that, with all their sophistacation and 
|> |> desire for secrecy, the abductors allow someone as unsophisticated 
|> |> and technologically backward as Budd Hopkins to trumpet their secrets 
|> |> to the world and to organize resistance?
|> |> 
|> 	This is obviously an example of their sophistication: extremely
|> subtle media manipulation. Just in case the technological blackout slips,
|> they have already pre-discredited anyone who reveals their secrets by having
|> them first trumpeted by idiots. Machiavellian!

Readers please note:  I didn't call them "idiots", he did. :-)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: stinerkt@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Kevin T Stiner)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: UFO's
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:27:04 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology


> You don't need to travel _at_ the speed of light just to travel a few  
light
> years!  What's wrong with simply travelling at 99.9999% of the speed of  
light?
> Whenever you travel very close to the speed of light (but not _at_ the  
speed
> of light, which is impossible), subjective time starts to slow down i.e.  
if
> someone on the earth thinks your journey to another star and back again
> took 5 years, you might think it only took a few hours if you were  
travelling
> very close to the speed of light.  In fact, it's very likely that within  
the
> next hundred years or so, humans will be able to travel to the nearest  
stars
> (or at least send probes there).
> 
> Of course, just because it's possible that aliens from other stars are
> arriving on earth it doesn't mean that it's actually happening!
> 
> Dave.
> -- 





Of course, this is all theory.........
We had the same feeling about the sound barrier before we broke it.
My answer to the question, "Can we travel faster than light?" is....
THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE POSSIBILITY OF A DEFINITE MAYBE!!!!!
Of course, everything is relative.......

Kevin T. Stiner

P.S. Let's ask our government to tell us all the info it has on UFO's.  I  
bet they could answer a lot of our questions......
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Scientific Theory (was: Re: UFO's
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:19:55 GMT

In article <21577@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, tzf@csl.biosci.arizona.edu (Theron Friedman) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep3.051211.4460@uwm.edu>, spice@convex.csd.uwm.edu (James G Spice) writes:
|> 
|> |> Second, no test of any hypothesis can ever *prove*, or *verify* that
|> |> hypothesis.  Corroberation is a more appropriate word.  On the other
|> |> hand, one test result contrary to the hypothesis falsifies it (if
|>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> |> we assume the testing technique is accurate).  This then is the goal
|> |> of science -- to falsify hypotheses produced by the paradigmatic 
|> |> theories of our time.  In this way, theories can be readjusted and
|> |> fine tuned and progress experienced.
|> |> 
|> 
|> Amusingly, this is the _theory_ about how science works. I heard tell of a
|> study recently in which experimenters presented scientists with a bunch
|> of examples of theories, predictions & negative results, and asked if the
|> subjects thought that the results falsified the theories. In the majority
|> of cases the reply was negative; they thought that the theory just needed
|> some tuning!

And, in fact, it is not even a very GOOD theory of how science works.  It
is in fact an ideological claim about how science "should" work.  

If you want to know how people make decisions, you have to look to psychology.
In the case of scientific reasoning, you could do worse than reading
I. J. Good (or more recent) on Bayesing (sp?) statistics.  This model 
views hypotheses as being believed with some probability from 0 to 1 (not
just T or F).  New evidence is combined with the existing belief with a 
"weight".  Weekly held beliefs may be swayed by small amounts of contrary 
evidence, hypotheses either very strongly held or with lots of evidence 
in their favor require really strong or a really large amount of counter 
evidence to "move" the belief.  Almost no single piece of evidence has 
high enough weight to overthrow any but the most trivial hypothesis,
a converging series of findings, however, multiply together and can "move"
the probability of a hypothesis.

Note that this is a psychological _theory_ of belief, although there is
decent evidence that it may well represents how (at least some) scientists 
think.

In the case of the light speed limit, there are numerous theoretical
reasons and probably billions of experiments that are consistent with 
the hypothesis that the speed of light is fixed and cannot be exceeded.  
There are few theoretical reasons and no experimental evidence to show 
otherwise.  The "weight of the evidence" is clearly in favor of the 
"accepted theory".  This isn't "proof" in the religious sense, but it 
is an explanation for why scientists believe what they do, and it is 
very reasonable for all of us to believe the light-speed hypothesis to 
be basically correct.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: alanj@dadd.ti.com (Alan Jones)
Subject: Re: UFO's
Reply-To: alanj@dadd.ti.com
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:21:13 GMT

In article anson@netcom.com, anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>
>The limit of the speed of light in a vacuum has been experimentally
>verified countless times since Einstein published his theories.  Hopefully,
>a physicist out there reading this can provide a better explanation than
>I can.

Uh, how does one experimentally "prove" that the speed of light cannot be
exceeded (by light or anything else?)?  Sounds to me like you're trying to
prove a negative, which is most cases is impossible.

---
sincerely,
Alan Jones  /  Texas Instruments, Dallas, TX  /  email=alanj@dadd.ti.com

From: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Richard Beckett)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:14:08 GMT
Subject: UFO's
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Bristol, UK
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Reply-To: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com

	How can anyone say UFO's don't exist ?
	UFO's presumably mean there's other life forms in our universe.
	What makes us think we're so special that we're the only ones ?

	Similarly:
	
	We could be first in the evolutionary race, and become other race's
	UFO's.

	Who knows ?
	
	How can any of us make blanket statements saying that they do or don't
	exist ? 


	Cheers,


		RIK


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rik O'Chet, Bristol, England.		
Email: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com		One's never alone with a Rubber Duck !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: UFO's
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:00:04 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle


anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:

[stuff deleted]

 > The analogy of the "light barrier" to the "sound barrier" is erroneous
 > because the speed of light in a vacuum is considered a fundamental limit
 > of space-time.  It's *not* an engineering issue; it's a matter of  basic
 > physics.

While I'm certainly no physics expert, I have heard of recent theoretical work
on the creation of a 'quantum vacuum'(?) between two parallel plates held very
close together. (On the order of atomic dimensions.) Supposedly the plates
reduce the number of possible quantum events that can occur in the intervening
gap, creating a quantum vacuum. When a photon passed between the plates (in a
direction perpendicular to the surfaces), it actually travels faster because it
does not 'interact' with as many possible quantum fluctuations.

I may have interpreted the work incorrectly, so please correct me if I am
wrong. However, if this result is true, then it may be possible for light to
exceed the 'speed of light' in a vacuum. Perhaps the speed of light barrier
is not as immutable as most of us have been taught to believe, and a
sufficiently advanced civilization may be able to use this result to travel
'FTL' between the stars. Then again, the hypothesis could be completely bogus
and I'm just blowing smoke.

-- 
 Bob Hall,                 | "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
 Workstation Peripheral    | Then give up. No use being a damn fool about it."
 Boeing Computer Services  |                                     -Groucho Marx
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Mrs Piper / Martin Gardner
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:44:45 GMT

In article <memo.590577@cix.compulink.co.uk>, live_wire@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Clifton) writes in part:
|> 
|> Many psychic investigators went to enormous efforts to catch Mrs
|> Piper out, and prove that she was a fraud.  Without exception, they
|> all failed.  But the _possibility_ that she was a charlatan clearly
|> occurred to ALL of them.
Please substantiate this claim.  How do you know that "ALL of them"
considered the possibilitly of fraud?  "This struck me as being typical 
of [Clifton's] condescending attitude,
and scant attention to the facts when they fail to suit his argument."

|> Psychic investigators were not impressed merely by Mrs Piper's lack
|> of interest in money and notoriety, but by the fact that none of them
|> were able to detect a single instance of fraud.  Piper was one of the
|> most thoroughly investigated mediums of the 20th century; many of her
|> investigators had a long and weary history of exposing charlatans and
|> cheats.  What really impressed them about Mrs Piper was the fact that
|> they were totally unable to find any possible method of subterfuge by
|> which she could obtain her information.
Please substantiate this claim.  Remember, you are claiming that
noone EVER found ANY possible method of subterfuge.  Good luck!

Meanwhile, I'll review my sources to see what the investigators actually
found, rather than what AC says was found.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: cherkaue@zomma.cs.wisc.edu (Kevin J. Cherkauer)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: UFO's
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:55:10 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

In article <#4knc!d.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>Saying that something is "only a theory" in an attempt to justify a belief
>in something (as yet not proven to even exist) is stretching matters a
>bit.

I am not attempting to justify a "belief" in FTL -- I have no idea if FTL is
possible. I'm saying that we don't *know* it is *impossible* because relativity
is a theory (which could be wrong). Period. Anyone who tells me scientists
*know* it is impossible (rather than merely *suspect* it is impossible) is
having troubles differentiating between theory and fact. (And finding a million
black crows does not prove there are no white crows.)

-- 
Kevin Cherkauer
cherkaue@cs.wisc.edu

Disclaimer: The above opinions are solely the responsibility of my owners.
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: christ@crash.cts.com (Chris Trichel)
Subject: Universities and the Paranormal
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:06:47 GMT



Question: Are there, and if so where, any universities that offer parapsychology
or related areas as part of their curriculum?

Question: Who/What are the organizations that conduct psychic/paranormal research?

Question: How does one go about getting involved in paranormal research?

Answers woudl really be appreciated...

-Chris Trichel
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: UFO's
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:46:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.081408.16434@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Richard Beckett) writes in part:
|> 	How can anyone say UFO's don't exist ?
UFO's clearly EXIST--there are pleanty of people who see and report
"unidentified" things.  The question is, what is the EXPLANATION of
the reports?  The "ET visitors" theory is only one of many hypotheses.
As in anything, one must look at each case and decide what the best
theory is for it.

|> 	UFO's presumably mean there's other life forms in our universe.
Hardly.  There are lots of other possibilities.  For instance, they could
be (and many sightings are) natural phenomena or earth-based technologies.
Are there cases that are due to ET visitors?  My evaluation is that
none of the cases I have checked out support that hypothesis, but that
doesn't mean it it impossible.

|> 	How can any of us make blanket statements saying that they do or don't
|> 	exist ? 
One shouldn't.  One should examine each case individually.  One should
also consider ALL the hypotheses, NOT just one's own pet theory.
UFOlogy is full of people who spend too much time shoe-horning the
"evidence" into their theories and not enough time saying "I'm not sure."

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace