HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood)
Subject: Re: that time of the month for the holy mother...
Originator: keithh@sydrd14
Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 06:06:34 GMT


In article <92273.193134RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
> we've all heard about statues or paintings of mary or jesus or some saint
> crying, or sometimes crying blood.
> 
> i saw some tv program (maybe "a current affair" or some such schlock) which
> had some guy on it who was renouncing these "miracles" as pure charlatanism.
> as evidence, he made a statue of mary cry blood, a copy of the mona lisa cry,
> and some other things.  the dude doing the interview tried to figure out how
> he did it by examining the base of the statue, and the backs of the paintings,
> and such.  he couldn't figure out how the guy made this happen, so he asked.
> 
> the dude responds, "a true charlatan never reveals the tricks of his trade,"
> or some such.
> 

One problem is those statues which cry for centuries; how can generation after 
generation of charlatans do it, profess to believe what they are faking and
not one of them gives the game away?

A couple of years ago one scientist said he had discovered a way to make 
statues cry using commonly occuring substances and such that the people
working the trick would be unaware that they were doing so. When asked
for more details said something like, `I won't tell you how, because
I might want to patent it and market a Tammy Bakker doll'. 

Keith Harwood.
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Science practice (Was Re: faith and skepti
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:57:11 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 27201@grebyn.com, rmg3@grebyn.com (Robert Grumbine) writes:
[delete] 
>   And this is about the way proper skepticism works.  (the capitalized
> version, I don't have much experience with).  The bare minimum is to 
> show that you _have_ a correlation.  Correlation is not enough, though,
> for more than a head nod that you _might_ have something.  To gain 
> agreement, you also have to show how is works.
[delete]

As a quick example, isn't there also some correlation between who wins the Super
Bowl and whether Dow Jones finishes the year up or down?  It's just an interesting
quirk until someone shows a causal relationship. 

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:42:36 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

Come on, McElwaine; you've posted this garbage before.  Even if you
are a joker, there is no reason to repeat the posting.

____________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
		"Everything You Know Is Wrong"
From: lopresti@henson.cc.wwu.edu (lopresti robert)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: televangelists of Texas
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:25:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Oct14.182555.15309
Organization: Western Washington University


THought this group might be interested in a bit of news from the
magazine CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Oct 5 92)4, page 19).  In Dallas Tv
evangelist Robert Tilton and a tv station are involved in a lawsuit.
They brought in forty-two potential jurists to winnow down to a jury
of twelve.

THey couldn't do it.  Each jurist was asked if they had any
negative opinions of tv evangelists. Those who said yes were asked 
if they could set those feelings aside and judge the case
objectively.

So many said yes to the first question and no to the second ("a gigantic
ripoff" said one, "I think they're thieves" said another) that they
couldn't select a jury.

The case is being heard by the judge alone.
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: IdEAL ORDERing Pizza's
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:41:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: cmsa.1687AB291.JHARTLEY
Organization: GM Research Labs

Well, I have been sitting here for two weeks waiting for the &%^*$*^ing
pizza to arrive to no avail.

Question: does Domino's still give you 1/2 off the price if an
IdEAL ORDERed pizza is late.

Oh, wait a minute. Someone's at the door.




Oops.  False alarm.  Or was it the pizza delivery guy imagining that he
was delivering the goods?  These (anti)matters are so puzzling.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu (EDWARD CRAIG HYATT)
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
Keywords: Richard owes me $100.00
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:02:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.162610.12487@odin.corp.sgi.com> rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith) writes:
>Rod Beckwith [writes]
>
>
>Rod Beckwith [writes]
>
>>How much are you willing to lose?
>
>Richard Shumacher [writes]
>
>>>  (1) the 'face' is artificial, I'll pay you $100.
>  
>>>  (2) the 'face' is natural, you pay me one dollar.
>  
>>>  If we do not agree on the interpretation of Observer data, 
>>>  the bet is off.
>  
>Richard,
>
>I accept your offer. I agree with all conditions to this bet. I hope you
>don't make this bet with too many people.....It could get quite expensive
>for you. 
>

I bought a paperback book about the Mars face in an airport a few
months ago.  I think it was called _Life on Mars_.  I found the
book quite interesting, but I formed a few speculative ideas
after reading it.  These ideas are based on my uninformed guesses
after reading the book and viewing the enclosed photos:

1.  The face won't look like a face at all at close range.

2.  The face is actually a crater formed by a meteor or a huge
    volcanic explosion.  The facial features are irregularities
    in the interior of the crater made of matter thrown off by
    the explosion.  The so-called pyramids around the face are
    more debris from the explosion.

3.  I had one more idea regarding the apparent pyramids around
    the face.  I'm wondering if a basically roundish object
    would appear square if it were viewed near the resolution
    limit of the imaging system.  I wonder if the effect could
    be the result of pixelization in a digital system or
    refraction in an optical system.

4.  If the face does turn out to be artificial, it will be one
    of the happiest and most exciting moments in my life.  The loss
    of $100 would be trivial by comparison!

-- 
--------------------
Craig Hyatt
NCSU@Raleigh, NC USA
echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu
--------------------
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith Healing (Was: Reincarnation)
Date: 9 Oct 1992 16:55:51 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1432@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	Once again, our modern skeptic blindly refuses to accept
>the ancient distinction between superstition and piety."Superstitious" was
>always a term of disdain. It is only in recent times that "pious" also became
>a term of scorn.

You're wrong.  While I don't accept that ancient distinction, my refusal to
accept is not blind.  The ancient distinction, as near as I can tell, is:
	Pious describes someone who believes in one's own religion. 
	Superstitious describes someone who believes in a different religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:17807 alt.alien.visitors:7352
From: sgamble@crc.ac.uk (Steve Gamble x3293)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Travis Walton "Abduction" (was: UFOS and BOOMY IN THE NIGHT)
Keywords: UFO
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:32:37 GMT
Reply-To: sgamble@crc.ac.uk (Steve Gamble x3293)
Distribution: World
Organization: MRC Human Genome Mapping Project Resource Centre, Harrow, UK

In various exchanges about the Travis Walton case:

	Gary Davis offers this as a good example of UFO abduction

	Robert Sheaffer states that it is a hoax and data is presented in 
	Phil Klass's book

	Jeff Papineau states that Klass is incorrect in debunking the case

(Forgive me if I have misunderstood anybody's position here)

It seems to me that we could have the basis of a resoned debate, with each
presenting their evidence. How about it guys?

(A minor point: Phil Klass is not a hoax, not only do I have photographs
 of Phil Klass, I actually claim to have spoken with him a couple of times.
 He might have DIFFERENT opinions to me, but then I have different opinions
 to many other 'believers'. Who can say which of us is correct?)

Steve

-- 
(Disclaimer: These are not my employer's opinions, they may not even be mine!)  
Steve Gamble, Computing Services, Clinical Research Centre and Human Genome  
Mapping Project Resource Centre, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3UJ, UK.
Phone: +44 81 869 3293  JANET: s.gamble@uk.ac.crc INTERNET: s.gamble@crc.ac.uk
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Skepticism (Was Re: Faith and sceptics.)
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:02:17 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <1992Oct15.020643.17197@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct13.182341.412@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct12.074959.26981@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes in part:
|> >|> The guy who keeps static and just protects himself, using skepticism as a
|> >|> psychological mask, retards progress.
|> >
|> >*Straw man alert*
|> >
|> >Give me an example of someone who does this.
|> 
|> We all do. To various degrees. If we are totally honest with ourselves.
|> I include myself. Is there anyone out there who's perfect and never
|> used skepticism as a mask? If so, please step forward.
I don't.  Look, you are not establishing your pseudo-psychological
generaialiation simply by repeating it.  This "mask" nonsense is
just pop psychoanalysis, and worth nothing.  Go ahead an criticizes
particular people for particular beahvior, but please spare me the
BS theorizing about general psycho-dynamic motivations.

|> But to find an extreme case, just look around your faculty and pick out
|> the grouchiest, most pessimistic, most negative, most defensive skeptic
|> (there's always a few around, cummon you know who I mean) and voila.
Can't see any here, sorry.  You're just repeating your claim without 
adding any new information.

|> Now look around and pick out the most bubbly, optimistic, positive person
|> in your faculty.
Can't see any of those here either, sorry.

|> >Most of the "static"
|> >people I know of "protect" themselves with absolute ideologies, such
|> >as religions, which absolve them from any thought at all.
|> 
|> Exactly. And that's precisely what we are talking about: the dangers
|> of skepticism becoming like a religious fervour.
This is exactly the *straw man* I was complaining about.  You are criticizing
something that doesn't even exist.  Show me that this alleged problem
exists, and then we'll discusss it.  Otherwise, lets restrict our
remarks to particular criticisms of particular arguments by particular
no-straw men and women.

|> Skepticism, by it's nature, always defends the status quo. Therefore, taken to
|> extreme it's  "static."
Huh?  How did skepticism get tangle up in the "status quo"?  Skeptics spend
immense amounts of time attacking commonly held religious and political
beliefs.  Skeptics are a tiny minority, out of tune with the public and
the powers that be.  How can skeptics be said to be defending the "status 
quo", by nature or otherwise?  You are clearly full of it, today, my
friend.

|> >What is the point?
|> 
|> Awareness exercise. :-)
Strawman exercise.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Skepticism (Was Re: Faith and sceptics.)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 22:17:21 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct13.182341.412@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.074959.26981@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes in part:
>|> The guy who keeps static and just protects himself, using skepticism as a
>|> psychological mask, retards progress.

>Puh-lease.  Do we really have to have all of this BS pseudo-psychology
>here?  What is the point?

Projection on Derek's part? :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Skepticism (Was Re: Faith and sceptics.)
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:19:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct15.020643.17197@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.182341.412@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.074959.26981@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes in part:
>>|> The guy who keeps static and just protects himself, using skepticism as a
>>|> psychological mask, retards progress.
>>
>>*Straw man alert*
>>
>>Give me an example of someone who does this.
>
>We all do. To various degrees. If we are totally honest with ourselves.
>I include myself. Is there anyone out there who's perfect and never
>used skepticism as a mask? If so, please step forward.
>
>But to find an extreme case, just look around your faculty and pick out
>the grouchiest, most pessimistic, most negative, most defensive skeptic
>(there's always a few around, cummon you know who I mean) and voila.

Proof by stereotype? Is it just me, or is there a problem here...
 
>Now look around and pick out the most bubbly, optimistic, positive person
>in your faculty.

Ahhh, proof by comparing stereotypes, it must be right.
 
>Ask yourself which one of the two seems to synergize things more and makes
>things happen. Which one is the shaker & mover?

You absolutely cannot tell from the information given. I went through
a bad period a few years ago, very pessimistic, not very friendly. But
I accomplished more than the rest of my group put together, and some of
the diagnostic scripts I wrote are still in use today.

You are equating skepticism with negativism and fear of change.
 
>>Most of the "static"
>>people I know of "protect" themselves with absolute ideologies, such
>>as religions, which absolve them from any thought at all.
>
>Exactly. And that's precisely what we are talking about: the dangers
>of skepticism becoming like a religious fervour.

Then it is no longer skepticism, is it.
 
>Skepticism, by it's nature, always defends the status quo. Therefore, taken to
>extreme it's  "static."

Not so. I have often been skeptical of -others-, and gone ahead and
caused changes myself (usually against the current).
 
>>What is the point?
>
>Awareness exercise. :-)

An excercise in proof by stereotype is not an "Awareness exercise".


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17987 rec.org.mensa:7398
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:24:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewse.1992Oct15.152448.10794
Organization: AT&T

In article <KETIL.92Oct15041145@spurv.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.012833.2496@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
>
>   Help me out a bit here--if there is, as you claim, theoretical underpinning
>   for astrolgy, then explain what I need to learn to understand it and point
>   me to some reasonable references.
>
>As I understand it, the reason astrology works is that the stars
>really are ancient assyrian (babylonian?) gods.  As everybody knows,
>the gods rule the world, and by studying how these gods behaved in the
>sky, of course one could learn a lot about the world, past, present
>and future.
>
>Of course, if you want to be 'modern' about it, and claim that the
>gods really are huge balls of rock/ice/whatever drifting around in
>nothing, there's no (analytical) reason astrology would work.

As I've said before, there's really no reason to assume that people's
moods and subsequent actions are not affected by the movement of
heavenly bodies.  For instance, the pull of the moon has an effect,
and effects on weather have an effect on people's actions.  Heck,
I know people that a clumsy, non-creative grumps when the barometer
goes down.

The things I'm skeptical of are:

1) People's rather bizarre extrapolations of these principles, and

2) the ornate detail some put into their ability to supposedly
"predict" these principles.

>
>Remember that the babylonians (or was it assyrians) were pretty good
>at empirical work (predicted eclipses etc. with astonishing accuracy,
>in many ways much better work than the greek later produced with all
>their theories) so if there was a connection, they probably found it.

Sure.  If someone wants to believe that being born during a certain
configuration of heavenly bodies makes one more creative, for instance,
I have no real reason to doubt it.  If someone believes that the
god Saturn has injected that person with the muse of writing, I would
have an emotional resistance to the idea.  But still no way to
prove the system for reaching the same conclusion is either correct
or incorrect.  Occam's razor, after all, is a principle of faith.

GMS
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Date: 8 Oct 1992 20:54:29 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <LEET.92Oct6084759@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>What are our acts measured by, then, and where does the "m." in
>"h.e.m." come from, if not from acts of eternal significance?

Lee, some of us believe that we're capable of imbuing our lives with meaning
ourselves.  We don't have to rely on some mythical authority figure's alleged
word, as recorded by a bunch of people thousands of years ago to provide that
meaning for us.

>If the patient/victim sees life as meaningless (as you do), then there
>is no difference.

Jan never said he sees life as meaningless.  He simply said he doesn't need no
steenking "holy book" to tell him where to find that meaning.  I understand
that you've abnegated all responsibility for that sort of thing in you own
life, having chosen to accept what's said in one so-called "holy book" chosen,
apparently, in ignorance of the existence of many competing holy books.  That
doesn't mean that all of us are as pathetic as you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Can quantum terminology be flakeproofed?
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:40:19 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1bem8aINNqi7@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>Then the wave function of the cat collapses shortly after it inhales the
>cyanide?  That's not Schrodinger claimed.

The wave function of whatever collapses at the time  the alpha particle
caused irreversible changes in the detector.  If you want after that a
wave function, then you have to consider the gravitational interaction
of each single particle in the universe with the detector/cyanide bottle/cat/
Wigner's friend/Wigner/refereed journal/etc. So basically you either must
consider the whole universe including the observed particle as a single
measuring apparatus (ridiculous), or you must cut off the chain at the
point where the interaction (thermodynamic, gravitational and otherwise)
with the environment contributes essentially to the wave function you
want to consider.

JWN

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 22:16:38 GMT

In article <14240.2adc69fa@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> hjort@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>
>I think the idea is that sexual activity should not be restricted (externally).
>However I don't think that implies people should not show any (self)
>restraint in terms of their sexual activity. Sex exists, and people will
>learn about it sooner or later, so it is better to prepare them for it
>rather than throw up a wall around sex, and have them be completely
>unprepaired for it.

and:

From: 003316g@ace.acadiau.ca (STEPHEN EDWARD ELLIOTT GREGORY)

>	I feel this is a valid coparison. The basic idea, I feel, is 
>that children are going to learn about sex sonner are later, just as they 
>are going to learn how to drive. The point is not telling teenages about 
>condoms does not mean they will NOT learn about sex. It's a better safe then 
>sorry senario: if I don't wear my seatbelt I *may* not get into an accident, 
>then again I could wrap my car around a telephone pole and die. Similarly, 
>if a teenager does not know about condoms and has sex nothing bad *may* 
>happen, then again sHe may get AIDS and die.
>	Most teenagers will eventually have sex...
>						  Trust me, I am one!

Gee, these paragraphs are very similar and make a lot of sense.  In
fact, they made just as much sense the hundreds of other times I've
heard them.
Let's try substituting drugs, guns, alcohol, tobacco for sex in the
paragraphs.

I think the idea is that drug use should not be restricted (externally).
However I don't think that implies people should not show any (self)
restraint in terms of their drug use. Drugs exist, and people will
learn about it sooner or later, so it is better to prepare them for it
rather than throw up a wall around drugs, and have them be completely
unprepaired for it.

etc.

Hmmm......the other things don't fit into the paragraphs.
The statistics I've seen say about half of high-school seniors have had
sex, so there's no use telling them not to.  We might as well show them
how to do it right and give them free condoms.
About half of the seniors are also going to have experimented with
drugs, alcohol, tobacco or used guns, so why don't we show them how to
do it right and give them free drugs and needles so they don't get any
contaminated stuff, beer and cigarettes and "relatively" safe guns like
22's or 38's.

I don't understand why it's OK to tell kids to "just say no" to drugs,
alcohol, etc. but it's ridiculous to even consider asking them to say no
to sex.

-- 
======== Boyd Johnson    nosc!spectra.com!johnson  San Diego, Ca. ========