HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Ulcer treatment (Re: Faith and sceptics)
Date: 8 Oct 1992 22:30:35 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <Bvrx6w.Gy@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler) writes:
=In article <5221@daily-planet.concordia.ca>, gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch) writes:
=|> Paul Kinsler writes [*]:
=|> ...
=|> >|> Do you know of any cases where a skeptic has retarded
=|> >|> the advancement of knowledge?
=|> ...
=|> >I read one in the paper just today. Some Australian doctors
=|> >came up with a new treatment for ulcers, but couldn't convince
=|>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=|> >the skeptical Pharm Companies to support them.
=|> ...
=|> >But it was the skeptical reaction to something against
=|> >conventional wisdom which held up the development of a 
=|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=|> >viable product.
=|> 
=|> It was skeptical reaction to a new treatment;  this is a long way
=|> from conventional wisdom.
=
=Paraphrasing, the article said (If my memory still works...)
=
=The way ulcers are treated currently (conventional wisdom!)
=is by supressing the production of acid in the stomach, to
=avoid irritating the ulcer. This is the way "everybody"
=does it.
=
=The new treatment uses a combination of antibiotics to
=kill the bacteria that cause the ulcer. This is not the way 
="conventional wisdom" (=antacids) treats an ulcer.

Hmmm.  That's odd.  They just use antibiotics, eh?  Then it's not the
pharmaceutical companies they have to convince, its the physicians.  How much
faith should we place in a claim that gets something that fundamental wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Artificial movement of trees
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:55:02 GMT
Organization: GRASP Lab

In article <1992Oct14.084718.20664@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rberg@nyx.cs.du.edu (rosemarie berg) writes:


>Is there a possibility to make move trees, tree branches, leaves by any of the 
>following means:

>(4) by spraying either needles or leaves with a specific substance which would 
    react to an outside force or the sunlight (solar energy), solar panelling?


No need for spraying anything.
The solar energy (indirectly) make the trees move.
It's called the wind.

Also some plants tend to orient themselves towards the sun (phototropy),
like the sunflower. Don't know the exact mechanism, though.


JM.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 7 Oct 1992 14:18 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Oct7.053636.25816@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes...
>Derek Bok and four others issued a joint statement saying that there was no
>scientific basis for the claims of astrology. I doubt that Derek Bok has read
>a book about astrology in all his life.

If you're thinking of the Nobelists' "Objections to Astrology" which was
issued in the mid-seventies, it was University of Arizona astronomer
Bart Bok (now deceased), not former Harvard University president Derek Bok.
(And there were more than five signatories.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17979 talk.politics.misc:51989
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:42:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.001621.23288@hfrd.dsto.gov.au>, shelley@hfrd.dsto.gov.au (Andrew Shellshear) writes:
|> 
|> An excellent book on the topic of unwarrented skepticism is 
|> the "Retrospectoscope".
|> I'm sorry, I can't remember the Author or Publisher but if anyone is
|> interested I'll look it up. It is mainly concerned with discoveries
|> in medical science that were largely ignored at the time, and the
|> reasons they were ignored.
These sound like cases of too LITTLE skepticism, not too much:

This and previous comments imply that doubting new ideas that
are outside of "accepted belief", is being "too skeptical".

On the contrary, this is a case of being "too credulous" about
the existing ideas.

This whole discussion is silly.  Everyone believes many things
that they can't really justify.  Noone believes absolutely everything.
"Skepticism" isn't some "disease" that you "have".  People who
argue about how good or bad "extreme skepticism" might be are playing
stupid labelling games.  How many things do I have to doubt to
rate the label "extreme skeptic", as opposed to "fairly extreme
skeptic"?  Or is there something in particular I have to doubt?
Or do I have to be "wrong" some proportion of the time?

Skepticism is a behavior, the only reasonable when used in a sentence 
like "I am skeptical about that particular claim."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood)
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Originator: keithh@sydrd14
Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 02:41:15 GMT


In article <1b59iaINN80l@agate.berkeley.edu>, lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cosma R. Shalizi) writes:
> In article <1992Oct9.134219.3229@spectrum.xerox.com> eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:
>    Try looking up "Tunguska" in an encyclopedia or basic (college-level)
> astronomy text and hunting down the references. Sagan says in _Cosmos_ that
> he thinks it was a comet. Reputable astronomers seem to be divided between
> this and an asteroid. Reports of radioactivity have sometimes surfaced in
> the UFOlogist literature. These have all the credibility one can reasonably
> expect from such sources.

The absence of debris makes an asteroid, even a very small one, doubtful,
unless we assume that it all sank into the tundra between the bang and
the expedition twenty-odd years later.
Other, more far out, possibilities include a small black hole (but then why
was there an air-burst) and a small amount of anti-matter. 

>    Thought for the day: A small change in the sucker's momentum and it
> could quite well have plowed through Western Europe... perhaps Nostradamus
> was talking about this and forgot to take account of significant digits? :)

Six hours later and St. Petersburg would get it on the nose.

Keith Harwood.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,can.general,tor.general
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Hawaii trip "contest" (was: Is this a scam)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:38:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.164403.13153@ncsu.edu> echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu (EDWARD CRAIG HYATT) writes:
>In article <92Oct9.173505edt.295@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> javier@cs.toronto.edu (Javier Pinto) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct9.185206.4371@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca>, ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes in part:
>>>|> >The deal was that, if one joined the health club for a "free" membership
>>>|> >costing $250 one won a free trip for two to Hawaii (airfare only). 
>>
>>A friend of mine "won" a round trip to Daytona, Fla. Reading the
>> (edited)
>>Javier.
>>
>
>I have my own theory about contests like this--they are mostly
>designed to get your name and address (and possibly other personal 
>information) on a mailing list.  I see things like this all the time
>in shopping malls--sign up for free encyclopedias, win a boat, win a
>trip to Bermuda, etc.  Accurate, targeted  lists of names and
>addresses are worth a lot of money.  

I'm not sure about 'a lot of money'. I rented a video at a video store
a while ago, and they wanted my place of employment, and a phone number.
I said sorry, I do not give it out, you don't need it. Later I talked to
the store owner, and it turns out that (???) had offered to buy his 
mailing list for 1.25 cents a name. Yes, one and 1/4 cent per name.

I do not know the going rate, but if this is the ballpark, it would take
a lot of work to get a lot of money.

>                                           I saw in the news a while
>back that one person entered such contests using a different bogus
>name for each one.  He then waited to see what kind of junk mail
>he got addressed to each bogus name.  I guess I've got better things
>to do (eg. sit here reading the news)...

It is a good idea to misspell or rename something and see it progress.
I used to do that, but now I don't bother.
 
>Craig Hyatt
>NCSU@Raleigh, NC USA
>echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.sex,sci.med
From: tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller)
Subject: Re: Cerebro-spinal fluid in semen? (Was Re: breakfast ...)
Organization: AL/HRTI, Brooks AFB
	<1992Oct15.052050.10038@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:26:38 GMT

On Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:20:50 GMT, pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel) said:

 P> I don't know if this is so, but I have a related question. I've
 P> begun practicing the Taoist semen retention techniques mentioned in
 P> the alt.sex FAQ, and just as described there I have noticed a
 P> fantastic increase in mental alertness and physical stamina.

	You *are* aware, I hope, that what you are doing is simply
directing your ejaculate into your bladder, to be voided when you next
urinate.  

	You are also aware, I hope, that this behaviour, once learned,
can be difficult if not impossible to unlearn, making normal ejaculation
well-nigh impossible.

-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:52:49 GMT

In article <LEET.92Oct12080933@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>>>>>> On 9 Oct 92 20:02:58 GMT, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) said:
>
>Robert> The Identification of John with "The Disciple Jesus Loved" is
>Robert> made ONLY in the final chapter of John, known to scholars as
>Robert> "The Epilogue of John."  It was written by a different hand,
>Robert> at a later time. It was NOT part of the original manuscript,
>Robert> and was probably written to solve one or more difficulties.
>
>How can you be so certain that
> 1) a different hand wrote it, (And if it was a different amanuensis,
>      so what?)
> 2) it was written at a later time, (How much later, anyway?)
> 3) it was not part of the original manuscript (The Rylands fragment?
>      I'm sorry, that was sarcastic.),
> 4) it was written to solve difficulties. (Which ones?)

For 1,2, and 3, see any standard reference work on the Gospel of John.
For 4, some of the "problems" apparently were:
       - "people are saying that "the disciple Jesus loved" is the young
          man Lazarus, who fled naked in the Garden."
       - "Matthew's Gospel has the risen Jesus appearing in Galilee, 
          not in Judea. I should bring these two accounts into line."

>
>>Now if someone want to make the perverse case that Jesus's love for his
>>disciple and friend was sexual in nature, then it certainly doesn't need
>>John and Lazarus to be the same person in order to do this. 
>
>But it does need ignoring the various Greek words for "love",

Not true, not according to the reference works I've read. The ambuguity
is there.

 and the
>Jewish laws against homosexuality, and the fact that it would be
>simple for the Sanhedrin to stone a captured homosexual if there was
>any *real* proof.

Only if he was "disturbing the peace" in a big way. A lot of Jews were
copying Greek ways at this time; Jesus may well have been one of them.

-- 
  
        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"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Keywords: crucifiction prophecy sacrifice hebrew
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.030126.15358@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>Yes, but were those victims Josephus tells about treated the same
>way as Jesus was or did they merely hang on the cross fastened
>with ropes?  Were they scouraged and their heads split opened with
>thorns, etc the way it was done to Jesus?  I think that these are
>important details.

Was Jesus' head "split open with thorns"? I thought they would inflict
painful but superficial flesh wounds.

Here is Josephus' complete text on that. From "The Life of Flavius
Josephus", section 75:

     ... as I came back I saw many captives crucified; and remembered
     three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this
     in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told
     him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down,
     and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their
     recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands,
     while the third recovered.

Now, if these men had been merely tied to a cross, I fail to see why
two of the three would die after being taken down (or why they would
even need more than superficial care from a physician). Actually, I am
wondering if we have any *credible* evidence that some victims were
simply tied to crosses. I suspect that all of them were nailed.


-- 
  
        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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Date: 12 Oct 1992 18:53:45 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct11.203313.14039@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>I suspect that it is more a matter of conditioning, and that it is
>not quite so simple. I am reminded of those saying that an addict can
>just choose to stop using <whatever, cocaine comes to mind>. But saying
>that ignores what an addiction is. If they could stop, they would not 
>be addicts.

Well, yes and no.  Given sufficient reason to stop, addicts CAN break the
addiction.  When I was told that if I kept smoking, my ulcer would probably
take much longer to heal, I quit smoking.  Period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: nkjrm@taxus.uib.no (Rolf Manne)
Subject: Re: Dowsing Info Wanted
Organization: University of Bergen
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:59:15 GMT

I have just been informed that my news program was set up erroneously, and
for this reason my postings were, most likely, not circulated outside 
Norway. I therefore repost the following article:

>In article <1992Oct10.043150.29792@rose.com> cedric.silvester@rose.com (
>cedric silvester) writes:

>>Could someone please post a few references to this subject. 
>>Thanks!

>>Cedric Silvester

>Finally, a real question about what I thought this discussion group
>was meant to be about.

>Dowsing does not work unless you know the location of that which you are 
>looking for. The trouble is that it is difficult to test claims of dowsing. 
>Ground water does not run in "veins" as dowserssay. Sure, the dowsers find 
>water, but nobody checks that there is no water where they say that there 
>isn't any.

>I offer some references from memory:

>1. The book "Water witching USA" by E. Z. Vogt and R. Hyman was published
>by University of Chicago Press some years ago and was later reissued
>as a paperback. Vogt is an ethnologist and Hyman a psychologist and a
>prominent figure in CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation
>of Claims of the Paranormal. I understand both were at Harvard when they
>wrote the book.

>2. James Randi has tested more than 100 dowsers. He describes some of his
>activities in the book Flim-Flam, published by Prometheus, Buffalo, N.Y.

>3. R. Foulkes described a test run by the British Army in the British 
>scientific journal "Nature" around the year 1971. It was quite negative.

>4. There is a controversy about dowsing going on in Germany. The 
>main proponents, two professors of physics from Munich, state that there is 
>a positive effect which, however, is very weak. They make it quite clear 
>that dowsers are notorious at overstating their abilities. These supposedly
>positive finds of these two professors have been questioned by German
>skeptics. It is clear that their best results were obtained in those 
>experiments which were most difficult to control. I have seen nothing 
>about this debate except in the German language.

>5. Personally I have taken part in three tests of dowsers here in Norway.
>They were all double-blind, meaning that neither the dowser nor the people
>watching controlling him knew what the correct answer was. One of these
>tests were arranged by the Norwegian Army in 1987 where officers had 
>been lead to believe that dowsing was good for finding victims of snow 
>avalanches. The second test was in 1991 and involved a medical 
>doctor who dowsed for "earth radiation", a health hazard which some people 
>believe in both here and in Germany. The third test was only a couple of
>weeks ago and was for a radio program. None of these tests showed any
>dowsing ability.

>Rolf Manne
>Department of Chemistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
>e-mail Rolf.Manne@uib.no

Rolf Manne
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Satan: Big Business
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:17:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In a previous message, I stated that Johanna Michaelson was married to
Hal Lindsey.  I just rechecked the _Cornerstone_ article on _Satan's
Underground_, and Hal Lindsey is Michaelson's brother-in-law, not
husband.  So they are related by marriage, just not as closely as I
thought.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:40:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.053636.25816@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes:
>>From: lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson)
>>Subject: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
>>[[ very LONG post about astrological research, with a long list of
>>   citations. Indicating that postive correlations have been found
>>   between astronomical events and human characteristics and other
>>   physical phenomena ]]
>
>I'll only say: thanks for posting the information. Most of it I was not
>aware of - I don't read in that area, so the Mr. McPherson has made a
					      ^Mrs. as far as I know
>contribution which I could not have, thanks much.

>The Zuni Indians, I think, do not like, or do not believe, in electronics,
>because they can't see the electrons themselves. Modern-day Zunis probably
>accept the devices because they see them to work, even if their cultural
>attitude hasn't changed.

Jan Willem Nienhuys has already corrected the rumors spread by McPherson,
so this is irrelevant.  Astrology still has neither a theory nor evidence.

>Derek Bok and four others issued a joint statement saying that there was no
>scientific basis for the claims of astrology. I doubt that Derek Bok has read
>a book about astrology in all his life.

My anti-skeptic model applies again.  (I used it in another thread already.)
The way Eric and others appear to be thinking:

 1) I am right.
 2) This skeptic says I'm wrong.
 3) Then he must be wrong.
 4) What could have induced him to say wrong things?
   a) He is closed-minded.
   b) He doesn't know anything about the subject.
   c) He is part of a conspiracy to hide the truth.
   d) In reality he shares my opinion, but peer pressure makes him oppose.
   e) Huuii, look at his chart!  (astrologers only)
   f) He only wants to have an argument.
   g) He is caught in reductionist/rationalist/positivist/... thinking.
   h) He thinks science has found everything there is to find.
   etc.  (Who knows more?)
 5) So I don't have to listen to him.

The paragraph above was an instance of 4b).

[..]
>I think all of us who dabble in the occult should come forward and say so.
A slight hint of 4d)?
>Salem would have had a harder time hanging witches when half the town turned
				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Witches are hanged too?  I thought they could only be destroyed by fire...

>out to be witches. The ignorance of those opposed is no warrant to receive
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^4b) again.
>their abuse.

--
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
...and then the dragon ate the princess and the knight, and he lived happily
ever after.   -- Grandma Addams telling Wednesday a story (paraphrased)