HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:41:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.135920.27176@news.uiowa.edu> boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes:
>> The simple fact is that it's because X persons AGREE on what's out there 
>> that we may assume that something really is out there.  The rest follows 
>> quite straightforwardly.  However, your inner experiences are yours and 
>> yours alone - why on earth should we believe any of it?
>This is the point of view of a skeptic--that the theory with the most votes
>wins?  I've never heard the scientific method framed in those terms before.

No, the point is that it can be verified by outsiders.  If I say that (say)
disease is caused by bacteria, you too can look for the bacteria under a micro-
scope.  Saying that disease is caused by invisible spirits that all the people
with microscopes happen to be unable to perceive is another story.

>But let's say that's true.  If the entire population of the world were to
>vote on what's real and what isn't, I'm pretty sure you'd be in the
>minority on quite a few issues.  As has been pointed out by others, there
>has been anecdotal evidence of the paranormal in every culture throughout
>history--_no_ scientific concept or theory can make that claim.

Fine.  There's anecdotal evidence of "paranormal phenomena".  OK, the
phenomena exist.  People really do have experiences that seem to be ghosts,
ESP, or whatever.

But when you claim that paranormal phenomena exist, you're not referring to
the perceptions.  You don't mean "when I say that precognition exists I mean
that people think they're good at predicting the future, rather than that they
really _are_ good at it".  Every culture probably knows some "paranormal
phenomena", but not every culture knows the concept of scientific proof.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Testing for "Auras"
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:35:13 GMT
Keywords: test, laboratory, auras

I don't see how one can test if a person sees "auras" or not.  Unlike
the claim that someone can sense magnetism, where we all know how to
test if something is magnetic, how can one tell if the person is
seeing the "aura" or just claiming to?
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     Hmmm.. a CRIPPLED ACCOUNTANT with a FALAFEL sandwich is HIT
 |warren@      by a TROLLEY-CAR..
/ nysernet.org
From: wlamonac@haydn.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Response to Cary Collet(t)
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:07:44 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <#cdmx5d@lynx.unm.edu> swells@triton.unm.edu (Ed Gruberman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.235452.19544@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards) writes:
>>: me to another point.  You have made the 4th Worst Classic Blunder:
>>: 
>>: 4.  Never get involved with sarcastic a physicist when UFO's are on 
>>:      the line.
>>: 
>>
>>I give up, what are the first three?
>>
>>--
>>Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  A shapely CATHOLIC
>>Rosemount Inc.                                |SCHOOLGIRL is FIDGETING
>>                                              |inside my costume..
>>grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
>
>
>WHAT???!!  you mean you don't KNOW the first four Classic Blunders??!!
>
>UH, MAH, GAWD!
>
>ya ever heard of einstein, plato, aristotle??
>  (yes...)
>
>MORONS!
>
>(more to come)
>
>
>
>shannon

It's inconceivable that he ever would bested the swordsman.
 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:29:47 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Jul27.155742.19254@news.uiowa.edu> boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes:

>But let's assume you've conducted experiments based on sound, scientific
>principles to prove to yourself that photons exist.  What proof would you have?
>Would you be able to taste, touch, hear, or smell them?  Would you even be
>able to see them?  

I can't taste, touch, hear, smell, or see YOU either, bub.

                     Nope--no one's ever directly perceived what can be
>identified as a photon.  A seeing person can see light, but not individual
>bundles of electromagnetic energy. There's no direct, experiential evidence
>that photons exist.  All anyone's ever seen are readings on experimental
>equipment.  The experimental equipment would have been set up according to
>scientific principles.  But what are these principles based upon?  Ultimately,
>they're based upon untestable, unproveable assumptions, such as the assumption
>that a physical, objectively observeable universe does exist--materialism.

The simple fact is that it's because X persons AGREE on what's out there 
that we may assume that something really is out there.  The rest follows 
quite straightforwardly.  However, your inner experiences are yours and 
yours alone - why on earth should we believe any of it?

>Thus, the belief that photons exist requires faith--faith in the basic
>assumptions of science, and, if you have not conducted the experiments your-
>self, faith in the authority of the scientific establishment.  Hardly the
>stuff of skepticism.

Belief yes, faith no.  There's a big difference.
And the whole point of science is to keep prodding the assumptions to make 
sure they reflect what really goes on in the world.

>Karl Boyken, system programmer | Distant cousins, there's a limited supply, 

Hey there's no experiential proof for the electricity running your system.
Better get a new job before somebody finds out it's all a fake and fires 
you.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: The EVE theory
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 04:49:21 GMT

On one level, the Eve hypothesis is what might be called "trivially true".
Everyone has only one mother, though several people may have the same mother.
Therefore, if you start tracing mother of mothers of mothers of mothers...
the set of great^N grand mothers can only decrease with N.  In order to not
come up with a single mother of us all, it would be necessary to have at
some point two women who share no common ancestry *at all*.  Therefore,
barring convergent evolution or divine acts of creation, there must exist
one woman who is an ancestor of all humans.

Problems for which an answer *must exist* sometimes lead people to develop
algorithms which will *always* come up with an answer, right or wrong.
I understand that something like this happened with the Eve problem-- the
computer program was guarenteed to come up with some answer for any input,
and if the input was tweaked slightly, the answer changed dramatically.
--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: 48 Hours on CBS - Miracle at Lourdes
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:43:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Jul23114310
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

Before I really start flaming CBS, did anyone have the patience to sit
through the entire program, 48 Hours - Miracle at Lourdes, last night?
I watched the first 30 minutes, and all they showed were people
claiming that miracles occured there, etc.  Did they show even one
skeptic??  Isn't this the same channel that recently brought us
biblical recreations and has had televangilists on during prime time?
Who owns this channel anyway?

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Of all the tyrannies that effect mankind,
Field Robotics Center,          | tyranny in religion is the worst; every
Carnegie Mellon University      | other species of tyranny is limited to the
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | world we live in; but this attempts to
(412) 268-3856                  | stride beyond the grave, and seeks to
                                | pursue us into eternity.  Thomas Paine
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics
From: barry@saticoy.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: help needed with a thought problem
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 10:03:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.235824.18389@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com> chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky) writes:

>
>Suppose there is this gigantic rod floating out in space.  Just for
>fun, says its, oh, 1,000,000 miles long.  Further this rod is made
>out of some super-duper-futuristic-space-age-pleiadian-uri-geller-
>don't-even-think-about-it type material and is thus perfectly rigid.  Now 
>suppose you have some mechanism on one end whose purpose is to push and 
>pull (longways) on the rod.  Is this not a FTL communications device 

>I'm
>not aware of any theories that link the laws of rigidity of objects and
>relativity.  Am I missing something?
>

Yes. The rod cannot transmit the motion faster than the speed 
of sound in the rod's material. Since the rod is made of
electrical material (atoms), the spped of sound in the rod
will be smaller than the speed of electrical signals, c. 

A "perfectly rigid rod" would allow faster than light
signals, but cannot be made out of particles described 
accurately by Maxwellian dynamics, which all our matter is.







--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13261 alt.alien.visitors:4829
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Human Parthenogenesis? (Was: Questions from an interested p
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 09:28:21 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Jul25.193400.14718@rosevax.rosemount.com>

Dear Grant: I will have to admit that a good deal of what the pulp
magazines contain is just something to sell papers but sometime they contain
pearls of wisdom that do come through. I believe that very little can 
be learned by looking at the headlines of the tabloids as one goes 
through the checkout line.
John Winston.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: wilson@glitch.cs.jhu.edu (Dwight Wilson)
Subject: Re: Weekly World News (was Re: Human Parthenogenesis?)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University CS Department
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:54:58 GMT

In article <25JUL199219485091@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>its legs).  Some sci.skeptic folks should make some contributions and
>see if any get printed.

"Discussion On Usenet Takes Place Without Flames!"

-Dwight
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: fire walking
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:49:55 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <5kVuNB2w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>
>        Obviously, people can't just stand on the coals for too long-- that's 
>why they call it 'fireWALKING' instead of 'fireSTANDING.'

Some Godmen of India can stand in the fire for a few minutes, but it's a trick.

>
>        But if you ever encounter someone who claims to be able to walk on 
>coals of 1500 degrees farenheit (which is, BTW , their temperature), ask them 
    you mean of course 600 degrees Celsius. It's SCI.skeptic over here.

>to stand on a 400 degree hot plate for maybe ten seconds. 

Please.  Skeptics should not challenge paranormalists to feats that 
they know can cause physical harm.  Do we not blame various alternative
medicine men that they cause harm? 
Leave the cruelty and the conning to them.  Let's not do this ourselves.

JWN


From: Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: july 4, 1992 - global
Date: 25 Jul 92  13:50:00 EST

-> Another friend knows when I want to talk to her. She'll often phone
-> at such points when I consciously ask her to (telepathically). What
-> I'd like to do is understand this phenomenon better.

Oh, I think I can help you understand.  It is either a product of an overactive imagination, an illogical system of rationalization or a hoax on your part.

Such skills have yet to be demonstrated in a controlled setting.  If you can demonstrate these "skills" then call up James Randi and arrange a demonstration.  You may win the $100,000 he has set aside for anyone who can so it.

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13351 sci.physics:11967
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics
Subject: Re: help needed with a thought problem
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:45:39 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <1992Jul29.053914.2873@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>Nope. The push or pull will propagate along the rod at whatever is the
>speed of sound in the rod (by definition of `speed of sound in X'), and
>there's no reason to believe that that would exceed C (and lots of reason
>to believe that it wouldn't).

But it is theoritically possible to have a rod of transparent material
wher the speed of sound in the rod is faster the the speed of light in the rod
but slower then the speed of light in a vacume.  Tap such a rod on one end
with a hammer and the whole things glows blue with Chernkov radiation.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: spani@mprgate.mpr.ca (Leonard Spani)
Subject: UFO book list (was Re: n)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 23:38:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.212251.5341@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
|> Since my joke posting on the Weekly World News's handling of UFOs, I've
|> received an extremely long mailing from a UFO addict .  It consists
|> of a list of must read books for those who wish "to join the debate
|> about the reality of the saucers."  A quick perusal of the list can
|> give one an idea of where this person's beliefs lie.


No. A quick perusal of the list can give one an idea of where this
person's *interests* lie. Whether this person swallows everything in these
books is another matter. I saw no indication in the book descriptions of
severe bias or "believerism."

|> 
|> However I'd like to see the sci.skeptic gurus comment on these works,
|> specifically if many of these tomes have been debunked and where.  
|> 
|> >
|> >UFO Books -- The Serious Literature
|> >Compiled by [name deleted]
|> >[Please pass this list along intact to anyone who wants a copy.]
|> [stuff deleted]

[book list deleted]


Thanks for posting the list of books (and thanks to the person who compiled
it) I have read 12 of them, and the ISBN numbers listed will help me locate 
some of the ones I haven't been able to find. 



-- 
***********************************************************************
| Leonard E. Spani      |       //!?\\         | (disclaimer-p)       |
| spani@mprgate.mpr.ca  |       \\?!//         | t                    |
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Testing for "Auras"
Keywords: test, laboratory, auras
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:22:48 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Jul20.220351.22409@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:

>I seem to remember an experiment in which five people sat behind an
>opaque barrier and the "psychic" read of their auras from left to right.
>The people then changed positions and the psychic tried again.  Do this

It requires care to come up with a barrier that is completely soundproof
too. Any faint scrapings or shufflings, etc., will easily give away
who moves where.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Weekly World News (was Re: Human Parthenogenesis?)
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:06:13 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <25JUL199219485091@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
|In article <1992Jul25.193400.14718@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes...
|>Ah, but the tabloids have PICTURES! ...
|
|The Weekly World News--they have a "source" for every story.  I think
|readers must make some of this stuff and send it in for laughs--like
|the "former Siamese twins" who want to be reconnected (photo shows
|pair of adult twins standing next to each other; ...

I know for a fact a group of my friends did just exactly that, sent in
a phony story just for laughs, photo included.  Sig, I guess the photo
wasn't wierd enough, since it never got published.
[Well, there goes my chance to have my picture published in a national
magazine].

|  Some sci.skeptic folks should make some contributions and
|see if any get printed.

An interesting idea, let's see just what level of absurdity is needed to
get the story published.  (Obviously one photograph is not enough).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Prime Directive
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:35:50 GMT
  John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
  23 Jul 92 00:55:43 GMT
  sci.skeptic
  <62609@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: Gary Katch <gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca>
Organization: Concordia University
X-Mailing-Address: Computing Services C-1012
  1455 De Maisonneuve West
  Montreal (Quebec) H3G 1M8
X-Phone-Numbers: voice (514) 848-7632
  fax (514) 848-7622
Originator: gpkatch@alcor

John Winston writes [*]:
>Dear Everybody: ...
> ...I had woken him up and had also appeared in his dreams. This 
>has happened to me and other people before. On sunday and monday nights
>I did a little warm up astral projection.

Dear John:  So that was _you_!  Listen, if you're going to practice,
would you mind keeping it down a little, please?  I have to work
in the morning.

-- gk
   " "
    ^ Witty and appropriate quote sent telepathically, honest.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken)
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:57:42 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Iowa

In article <1992Jul24.182141.9258@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
(Robert McGrath) writes:

> 
> In article <1992Jul24.151943.26927@news.uiowa.edu>, boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes in part:
> |> To me, the simplest explanation is that I and
> |> others do know what we experience, that we do know what we're talking about.
> I won't argue with you about this (although it shows a definite lack
> of insight into your own ability to know things about yourself).
> Call it paranormal if you want, I don't care how you label your
> own experiences.

This is exactly the kind of patronizing, condescending pap I mentioned in my
earlier post.

> 
> What I really wnat to know is:  What happens while you are (or feel
> you are) out of your body?  What is the "you" that is outside?
> How can it "see" light (photons) without any of the ususal retina
> and neural apparatus?
> 
> And most of all, "What, if anything, leaves the body during your OBE?"
> 
> YOU are the expert.  Please tell me the answers to these questions.
> 
> -- 
>   Robert E. McGrath
>   Urbana Illinois
>   mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
> 
> 

Photons?  Are you asserting that photons exist?  And how did you come by this
knowledge?  Did you read it in books; did you hear it in a lecture?  I thought
skeptics didn't form beliefs solely on the basis of authority.

But let's assume you've conducted experiments based on sound, scientific
principles to prove to yourself that photons exist.  What proof would you have?
Would you be able to taste, touch, hear, or smell them?  Would you even be
able to see them?  Nope--no one's ever directly perceived what can be
identified as a photon.  A seeing person can see light, but not individual
bundles of electromagnetic energy. There's no direct, experiential evidence
that photons exist.  All anyone's ever seen are readings on experimental
equipment.  The experimental equipment would have been set up according to
scientific principles.  But what are these principles based upon?  Ultimately,
they're based upon untestable, unproveable assumptions, such as the assumption
that a physical, objectively observeable universe does exist--materialism.

Thus, the belief that photons exist requires faith--faith in the basic
assumptions of science, and, if you have not conducted the experiments your-
self, faith in the authority of the scientific establishment.  Hardly the
stuff of skepticism.

On the other hand, my belief in my paranormal experiences is derived from my
own experience.  I'm skeptical of belief by authority, skeptical of belief by
faith.

*****        _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize         *****
Karl Boyken, system programmer | Distant cousins, there's a limited supply, and
Department of Computer Science | we're down to the dozens, and this is why:
The University of Iowa         | big-eyed beans from Venus--oh my, oh my!
boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu      |                           -- Captain Beefheart
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: how did Uri fake the spoons
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:19:23 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul20.162549.11092@schbbs.mot.com> RXTL20@WACCVM.corp.mot.com writes:
|I assume Randi showed how Uri faked the bending of spoons.
|I haven't been on this net too long, so may have missed the explanation.

Which of the two or three methods do you want?

Seriously, that is one of the 'tricks' to being a proffesional magician,
having several ways of doing each effect, and choosing the one most
useful in a given context.  This way people get fooled, because they
are always looking for the *wrong* method.

The spoon bending stuff is mostly a matter of simple misdirection though,
subtle equivalents of "Hey, what's that over there!".  One bunch that was
auditing Geller claims he even tried to stick it in a faucet and bend it
that way (using the running water as 'cover').


Really, spoon bending is simply silly, and is so simple to do that it
proves nothing.  If he really does have PK he aught to be using it for
something *practical*.  I mean what good in spoon-bending except for getting
money out of gullible fools.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic