arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) (06/16/89)
>I have been personally shocked lately as to the promulgation of the >so-called New Age in the media and in people's living rooms and >discussions. Since there is even a newsgroup dedicated to it, I >wondered if a skeptical group might not be called for. >The idea would be that the group would be unmoderated and that issues >of New Ageism and its ilk might be discussed openly and skeptically. >If it seems as though I want only to bask these kind of ideas, it is >only my abhorance of these sorts of things merely accepted and not >discussed critically. No bashing allowed! >What think you? >Norman R. Gall I'll go for this idea. Incidentally, the article to which I was responding had news.admin as the first group, and several others after it. News.groups was not included (it should have been). But if it had been added at the end, it wouldn't have mattered--since the news software automatically set the followup-to line to the first group in the list, had news.groups been at the end, no followups to the article would have gone to news.groups. An excellent argument for REMOVING this "feature" as soon as possible. -- "The fact is self evident from the text and requires no supporting argument." --Tim Maroney Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm; INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)
gpmenos@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (G. Philippe Menos) (06/16/89)
In article <1582@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee (600.429)) writes: >>I have been personally shocked lately as to the promulgation of the >>so-called New Age in the media and in people's living rooms and >>discussions. Nothing new new here, except the greater power of the media with advancing technology, but "new age" type issues have been circulating broadly in America at least since the spiritualist movement of the 19th century and befor that among devotees of the mother goddess and forms of "witchcraft," a much maligned but often (but not always) worthy (in the sense of ethically advanced) religion. >> Since there is even a newsgroup dedicated to it, I >>wondered if a skeptical group might not be called for. >>The idea would be that the group would be unmoderated and that issues >>of New Ageism and its ilk might be discussed openly and skeptically. >>If it seems as though I want only to bask these kind of ideas, it is >>only my abhorance of these sorts of things merely accepted and not >>discussed critically. No bashing allowed! >>What think you? >>Norman R. Gall I'm in favor! But if this new group does not get off the ground, I hope you join talk.religion.newage. Many of us who participate in this group do so for precisely the reasons and with the motives you describe, with varying degrees of "abhorance", depending on the specific topic. With best wishes, -Phil
lord@se-sd.NCR.COM (Dave Lord) (06/17/89)
In article <1582@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee (600.429)) writes: >>I have been personally shocked lately as to the promulgation of the >>so-called New Age in the media and in people's living rooms and >>discussions. Since there is even a newsgroup dedicated to it, I >>wondered if a skeptical group might not be called for. >>The idea would be that the group would be unmoderated and that issues >>of New Ageism and its ilk might be discussed openly and skeptically. >>If it seems as though I want only to bask these kind of ideas, it is >>only my abhorance of these sorts of things merely accepted and not >>discussed critically. No bashing allowed! >>What think you? >>Norman R. Gall YES, YES, YES!!! Give these people a place to to masturbate with their atheist, PROVE IT PROVE IT, intolerace and closed mindedness. But only if they promise not to cross post to talk.religion.newage. Let our news group be a place where people with spiritual experiences and beliefs can talk to each other without fear of being attacked by atheists. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sorry, I won't be here to read your flames for the next couple of weeks. -Dave
wcs) (06/18/89)
In article <whichever> Norman Gall writes:
]>wondered if a skeptical group might not be called for.
]>The idea would be that the group would be unmoderated and that issues
]>of New Ageism and its ilk might be discussed openly and skeptically.
]>No bashing allowed!
Sorry, but a group on skepticism inherently implies bashing,
including SKEPTIC-BASHING. This isn't all bad; some things deserve
to be bashed, though anyone skeptic-bashing in talk.religion.skeptic
should know what they're in for. Skepticism is inherently negative
(which is fine, btw); unlike religions making positive assertions,
those of you who defend the null hypothesis can't really object to
those who are vehemently skeptic about skepticism.
Bill
--
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs
# also cloned at 201-271-4712 tarpon.att.com!wcs
# ... counting stars by candle light ....cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/19/89)
In article <1961@se-sd.NCR.COM>, lord@se-sd.NCR.COM (Dave Lord) writes: > In article <1582@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee (600.429)) writes: > >>I have been personally shocked lately as to the promulgation of the > >>so-called New Age in the media and in people's living rooms and > >>discussions. Since there is even a newsgroup dedicated to it, I > >>wondered if a skeptical group might not be called for. > >>The idea would be that the group would be unmoderated and that issues > >>of New Ageism and its ilk might be discussed openly and skeptically. > >>If it seems as though I want only to bask these kind of ideas, it is > >>only my abhorance of these sorts of things merely accepted and not > >>discussed critically. No bashing allowed! > >>What think you? > >>Norman R. Gall > > YES, YES, YES!!! Give these people a place to to masturbate with > their atheist, PROVE IT PROVE IT, intolerace and closed mindedness. > But only if they promise not to cross post to talk.religion.newage. > Let our news group be a place where people with spiritual experiences > and beliefs can talk to each other without fear of being attacked > by atheists. I speak from a rather peculiar perspective. I was a charter subscriber of _The_Skeptical_Inquirer_. I'm a Christian; I'm definitely NOT a new ager. If such a group falls into the same trap that _The_Skeptical_Inquirer_ fell into -- defending ALL scientific orthodoxy, as opposed to open-minded but skeptical evaluation of extraordinary claims -- such a group will be as worthless as talk.origins. I'm skeptical such a group has any real value. Better to stay in the sci.* groups, and leave the New Agers to their beliefs -- you aren't going to persuade them by rational discussion anyway, since the self-directed view of reality is the essential component of New Age ideas. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer A pacifist who calls the police isn't one; hired violence is still violence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (06/19/89)
In article <1521@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> wcs@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs) writes: }In article <whichever> Norman Gall writes: }]>wondered if a skeptical group might not be called for. }]>The idea would be that the group would be unmoderated and that issues }]>of New Ageism and its ilk might be discussed openly and skeptically. }]>No bashing allowed! } }Sorry, but a group on skepticism inherently implies bashing, }including SKEPTIC-BASHING. It may to you, and those who approach it as you may, but it does not necessarily follow. It is easy to be thoughtful (first entry in my dictionary for definition of skeptic) on a phenomena without personal attacks. The only time "bashing" inherently follows is when one is so attached to their viewpoints that they are incapable of separating their views from their selves, and are incapable of supporting the views. So have the sci.skeptic, but keep the newagers out of it. ........................................................................ The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
salem@coco3.uucp (Bruce Salem) (06/20/89)
Clayton made a remark that talk.origins was worthless. Its value may be diminished by the refusal of participants to think and listen, and less by the hidden ajendas of that debate. When all is said and done any USNET group is only as worthwhile as the willingness of the participants to think and acknowledge the influience others have on them. It may seem a waste to have people insist on a view against all objections and arguments to the contrary. They either show themselves as fools to the rest of us, or they have something to say that isn't being heard, but the dialog is a start. The debate between creationists and evolutionists on talk.origins may be secondary to deeper political and philosophical concerns. One's prejudices about why we are here are fundemental, a basic philosophical issue, often obscured by unconsidered belief. Over and over again in the talk and sci groups people lose sight of the idea that the method is more important than the result in any argument that doesn't appeal directly to faith. A group that deals directly with method, even if to hone skepticism, would be a good idea. Bruce Salem
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (06/20/89)
In article <1961@se-sd.NCR.COM>, lord@se-sd.NCR.COM (Dave Lord) writes: > YES, YES, YES!!! Give these people a place to to masturbate ... Yeah. Sounds like great fun.
ken@arc.UUCP (Ken Stuart) (06/20/89)
In article <22269@joyce.istc.sri.com>, salem@coco3 (Bruce Salem) writes: > > It may seem a waste to have people insist on a view against all >objections and arguments to the contrary. They either show themselves as >fools to the rest of us, or they have something to say that isn't being >heard, but the dialog is a start. Hmm, in the case of some New Age (and rec.audio for that matter!) ideas, they often derive from personal experience. In such cases, this cannot be verified by someone else, but also cannot be denied by the experiencer, simply because of some rational argument, by either himself or someone else. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable desire for people who have experienced such things to discuss details, new books, etc. among themselves, just as with skiing, Dr. Who, or the Grateful Dead. It is interesting that I have never seen messages in rec.skiing saying "Skiing sucks, you are all such fools to waste your money!", nor have I seen such messages in rec.arts.drwho. Maybe people don't feel threatened by skiing or Dr. Who. Else why would they go to all the trouble of skeptical groups and so forth. In any event, maybe we need both: talk.religion.newage.discussion talk.religion.newage.information > Over and over again in the talk and sci groups people lose sight >of the idea that the method is more important than the result in any >argument that doesn't appeal directly to faith. A group that deals directly >with method, even if to hone skepticism, would be a good idea. > I am not sure I know what you mean here. Can you be more explicit? Thanks. -- - Ken ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply to : apple!arc!ken \ Disclaimer: All the above is solely sun!apple!arc!ken \ the opinion of the author ken@arc.UUCP arc!ken@apple.COM \ and not those of his employer. ====================================================================== "I only believe in you." - Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, Howe ----------------------------------------------------------------------
werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) (06/20/89)
People are generally skeptical. They are skeptical about particular
things. Having a groupo about skepticism seems to me to be a waste of
time. As far as the other groups go. It is my experience that posters
as opposed to readers tend to be true beleivers who get both mad and even
when hostile followups occur. It would seem to me that sci.skeptic would
be a very low traffic group.
--
Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go)
werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"Comedy, like Medicine, was never meant to be practiced by the general public."rant@moncam.co.uk (Angry of Mayfair) (06/20/89)
> Sorry, but a group on skepticism inherently implies bashing, > including SKEPTIC-BASHING. This isn't all bad; some things deserve > to be bashed, though anyone skeptic-bashing in talk.religion.skeptic > should know what they're in for. Skepticism is inherently negative > (which is fine, btw); unlike religions making positive assertions, > those of you who defend the null hypothesis can't really object to > those who are vehemently skeptic about skepticism. It's getting a bit boring, seeing the same old carp written about skepsis, over and over again. At worst, bashing should be incidental; the argument should simply be given a different direction, with **** NO **** judgement for or against an idea. That is the purpose of skepsis - enquiry. I know we're only human, but do you think we could get this one right FROM THE START????? We've already had one complete cockup going in the direction of BELIEF with mail.skeptics (this all belongs to talk.religion.newage, which seems sadly underused unless I'm not getting it all), so PLEASE let's not go the other way. We can all pan things, sometimes with great emotion and skill, but if we do that here, we'll lose sight of the original idea, which is pure and simple unprejudiced enquiry. BTW, skepsis is NOT inherently negative; it is NEUTRAL, and it would NOT be fine if it were negative. There are ALWAYS three aspects of `polarity' - positive, negative and neutral. Belief and disbelief are NOTHING to do with enquiry, so do us all a favour and LEAVE IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mmeyer@m2.csc.ti.com (Mark Meyer) (06/23/89)
In article <1961@se-sd.NCR.COM> lord@se-sd.UUCP (Dave Lord(SSP)) writes: >YES, YES, YES!!! Give these people a place to to masturbate with >their atheist, PROVE IT PROVE IT, intolerace and closed mindedness. ... >But only if they promise not to cross post to talk.religion.newage. >Let our news group be a place where people with spiritual experiences >and beliefs can talk to each other without fear of being attacked >by atheists. Whereas Mr. Lord here, convinced that ALL skeptics are atheists, is the paragon of tolerance. Sheesh. >Sorry, I won't be here to read your flames for the next couple >of weeks. -Dave Pity. I posted anyway. While I'm here, I'd like to go on record as supporting the idea of a skeptics' newsgroup. There are a wide variety of topics (parapsychology not in talk.religion.newage, UFOs, cryptozoology, etc.) that have no home newsgroup. I would like a designated place to be able to share information on such topics. My YES vote is standing by. -- Mark Meyer USENET: {ut-sally!im4u,convex!smu,sun!texsun}!ti-csl!mmeyer Texas Instruments, Inc. CSNET : mmeyer@TI-CSL TI's too busy making chips - I had to come up with these opinions myself. "We're out of Thunderbird." "Who drinks THAT?" "I do."
jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) (06/28/89)
Sci.sceptic, eh? I am reminded of Aleister Crowley's comment about
scepticism being a virgin in the morning. I'm a casual occasional observer
of this group. Most of my life I've been a hard-core materialist, logical
positivist MIT type. Recently I have had reason to hypothesize that
there really is something weird going on here in the universe. I am now
trying to apply scientific method thinking to the realm of experience (i.e.
human subjectivity). I sometimes feel pretty wonky living in the zone
of the in betweens, as Peter Gabriel puts it.
I'm doing turbulence modelling here at Boeing Commercial. I've become
rather obsessed with chaotic dynamics. Now, we know that logical
positivism is helpless in the face of one-shot, nonrepeatable phenomena
(comments about this assertion welcome). We've just discovered that there
is no such thing as noise, only extremely complex ordered structures.
It follows that every event is unique, nonrepeatable, and therefore not
amenable to traditional scientific method style inquiry. And it seems
to me that chaos theory demonstrates that everything is connected to
everything else, to make a grossly loose and unmathematical generalization.
Is there a larger generalization than that? Maybe "God is God. God is
not everything." Anyway, if this interpretation of chaos theory is correct
(and I could well be mistaken) it implies all sorts of disturbing and
exciting things. Sci.physics is not the place to discuss the
possibilities, and this is not really a New Age idea, so maybe sci.sceptic
would be appropriate.
There's a lot of name-calling and knee-jerk labelling happening all over
the net. This is not surprising to me; I read Rupert Sheldrake's
excellent book _A New Science of Life_ and observed how the orthodox
scientific community flamed him mercilessly in _Science_ and other mags.
Scientism is alive and well ("scientific heresy," they called it in
_Planet of the Apes_). My fear is that sci.sceptic might degenerate
into the network High Inquisitor of Science.
I've been rambling too long. I'll vote for it if the time comes.
Go easy.
. All of these endeavors are based on the
DEATH . .. belief that existence should have a
. . . completely harmonious structure. Today
. . . . we have less reason than ever before
. .. . . . . for allowing ourselves to be forced away
. . . . . .. from this wonderful belief.
. . . . . . . -Einstein
prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) (06/30/89)
In article <440@tahoma.UUCP> jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) writes: >Recently I have had reason to hypothesize that >there really is something weird going on here in the universe. I am now >trying to apply scientific method thinking to the realm of experience ... > . All of these endeavors are based on the > DEATH . .. belief that existence should have a > . . . completely harmonious structure. Today > . . . . we have less reason than ever before > . .. . . . . for allowing ourselves to be forced away > . . . . . .. from this wonderful belief. >. . . . . . . -Einstein > Death is a bad habit. * * v Prem
sleeve@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Stephen F. White) (07/05/89)
In article <440@tahoma.UUCP> jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) writes: >... And it seems >to me that chaos theory demonstrates that everything is connected to >everything else, to make a grossly loose and unmathematical generalization. > [Lots of other wild stuff regretfully deleted] Have you been talking to Dirk Gently lately? :-) Zen navigation _really works_, you know.. sfw -- /*************************************************************************** * "Rock & Roll vegetable, vegetable stew!" * Stephen F. White, esq. * * - Jazz Butcher * sleeve@watcsc.uucp * ***************************************************************************/