<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
  <title>sci.skeptic Google Group</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic</link>
  <description>Skeptics discussing pseudo-science.</description>
  <language>en</language>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/d4581b58e4a0451f?show_docid=d4581b58e4a0451f</link>
  <description>
  That&#39;s bullshit. &lt;br&gt; Marshall
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/d4581b58e4a0451f?show_docid=d4581b58e4a0451f</guid>
  <author>
  marshall.spi...@gmail.com
  (Marshall)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:00:16 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Here is my beef on Abiogenesis and evolution the fairy story for</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/25fa6e2d4ac73c0d/a7e5c54bc0f93ed8?show_docid=a7e5c54bc0f93ed8</link>
  <description>
  He&#39;s left handed? &lt;br&gt; (The original meaning of &#39;sinister&#39;)
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/25fa6e2d4ac73c0d/a7e5c54bc0f93ed8?show_docid=a7e5c54bc0f93ed8</guid>
  <author>
  smi...@joe.king.com
  (Smiler)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:41:54 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: A question Budikaka can&#39;t anser ever (snicker)</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/25fa6e2d4ac73c0d/9ce2c649fe65402c?show_docid=9ce2c649fe65402c</link>
  <description>
  So you must be able to quote, with referrences to the original post, the &lt;br&gt; exact words where someone other than you has claimed that science has &#39;the &lt;br&gt; answer to everything&#39;. Please do so in this space. &lt;br&gt; You do, of course, realise that, if science did have the answer to &lt;br&gt; everything, there would be no point in doing any further research. But then
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/25fa6e2d4ac73c0d/9ce2c649fe65402c?show_docid=9ce2c649fe65402c</guid>
  <author>
  smi...@joe.king.com
  (Smiler)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:35:23 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/dfade09794ca87f5?show_docid=dfade09794ca87f5</link>
  <description>
  I didn&#39;t say they were made up _of_ rules, I said that they were rules that &lt;br&gt; someone made up. &lt;br&gt; No, it is not an open question. Mathematics is a game, an intellectual &lt;br&gt; exercise, any relation that it bears to practical reality is purely &lt;br&gt; coincidental. A common toast among mathematicians is &amp;quot;here&#39;s to pure
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/dfade09794ca87f5?show_docid=dfade09794ca87f5</guid>
  <author>
  jclarke.use...@cox.net
  (J. Clarke)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:15:54 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: A question to Budikaka</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/25fa6e2d4ac73c0d/d531df5230bb66e0?show_docid=d531df5230bb66e0</link>
  <description>
  ICYPFY.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/25fa6e2d4ac73c0d/d531df5230bb66e0?show_docid=d531df5230bb66e0</guid>
  <author>
  smi...@joe.king.com
  (Smiler)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:22:37 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>So Who&#39;s A Climate Scientist?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/3d0ccf3458eb8e8d/99db8dfab25590e1?show_docid=99db8dfab25590e1</link>
  <description>
  Depends On Which Side You&#39;re On &lt;br&gt; Any old alarmist is AUTOMATICALLY a &amp;quot;climate scientist&amp;quot;!! &lt;br&gt; August 4 2009 &lt;br&gt; &amp;quot;PROMINENT scientists with long publications records, such as Bob Carter, &lt;br&gt; are routinely described by the media as not being climate scientists and &lt;br&gt; really not reputable scientists at all if they aren&#39;t on the alarmist
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/3d0ccf3458eb8e8d/99db8dfab25590e1?show_docid=99db8dfab25590e1</guid>
  <author>
  m...@nnn.com
  ( n0 b o)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:15:30 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>BBC to launch review into allegations of bias in its science coverage</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/e720b808258bf0c1/2f5ce0e2bfc772cc?show_docid=2f5ce0e2bfc772cc</link>
  <description>
  There are several articles on topic listed by google news, including one at &lt;br&gt; BBC: &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&amp;cf=all&amp;ned=ca&amp;cf=all&amp;ncl=dELNXlSKYx6milMmqz0-DQwzUGXpM&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; Why doesn&#39;t Canada ever review the CBC&#39;s bias, which is even worse than &lt;br&gt; BBC&#39;s? &lt;br&gt; UK during the ice age: &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/e720b808258bf0c1/2f5ce0e2bfc772cc?show_docid=2f5ce0e2bfc772cc</guid>
  <author>
  m...@nnn.com
  ( n0 b o)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:55:07 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/643f55468f5f42e9?show_docid=643f55468f5f42e9</link>
  <description>
  Ah well, dorayme... woo hoo dorayme... look we are finally of some &lt;br&gt; use to these folks! Which reminds me of this story: &lt;br&gt; A woman was given her late husband&#39;s ashes in the form of a sand-timer &lt;br&gt; like utensil. Every time she used it to time her boiled eggs, she &lt;br&gt; would chuckle on how at last her husband was useful around the house!
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/643f55468f5f42e9?show_docid=643f55468f5f42e9</guid>
  <author>
  patricia.aldo...@gmail.com
  (Patricia Aldoraz)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:47:46 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/0324a49abf6e828c?show_docid=0324a49abf6e828c</link>
  <description>
  In article &amp;lt;hi61qt01...@news1.newsguy.com &amp;gt;, &lt;br&gt; I cannot *remember* what is not true! And it is not true that axioms in &lt;br&gt; maths or logic or physics are always *made up of rules*. &lt;br&gt; It is an open question whether it is not *just* a logic game. There are &lt;br&gt; semantics. And it is not clear what &amp;quot;having a basis in the physical
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/0324a49abf6e828c?show_docid=0324a49abf6e828c</guid>
  <author>
  doraymeridt...@optusnet.com.au
  (dorayme)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:41:33 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/1e15b67efb1db5ee?show_docid=1e15b67efb1db5ee</link>
  <description>
  Just wanted to know how you defined the terms. Seems that you&#39;ve got it &lt;br&gt; mostly right, however you need to remember that axioms are _always_ made up &lt;br&gt; rules, in both math and physics. In math, which is really a logic game, the &lt;br&gt; axioms don&#39;t necessarily have any basis in the physical universe, while in
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/1e15b67efb1db5ee?show_docid=1e15b67efb1db5ee</guid>
  <author>
  jclarke.use...@cox.net
  (J. Clarke)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:13:25 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/c664f2022f604650?show_docid=c664f2022f604650</link>
  <description>
  Seriously? Because that&#39;s an interest of mine. What &lt;br&gt; algorithms are you using? Do you have papers you&#39;re &lt;br&gt; fond of? &lt;br&gt; I found algorithmically establishing authorship of usenet &lt;br&gt; posts to be fairly difficult, because I was never able &lt;br&gt; to get any algorithms to work all that well unless I had &lt;br&gt; a fairly sizeable body of words; 50,000+ was generally
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/c664f2022f604650?show_docid=c664f2022f604650</guid>
  <author>
  marshall.spi...@gmail.com
  (Marshall)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:19:01 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: UK-- coldest winter in 30 years</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/3c59d0cdb8e4b853/1c2132138a9f8568?show_docid=1c2132138a9f8568</link>
  <description>
  Yes, we all know the drill by now .... &lt;br&gt; Hot weather is caused by � &lt;br&gt; � GLOBAL WARMING! &lt;br&gt; � EXTREME WEATHER! &lt;br&gt; � THE ENVIRONMENT FIGHTING BACK! &lt;br&gt; Cold weather is caused by � &lt;br&gt; � a dry air mass and clear skies. &lt;br&gt; � a cold front. &lt;br&gt; � nothing in particular. &lt;br&gt; Warmest Regards &lt;br&gt; Bon_0 &lt;br&gt; &amp;quot;It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/3c59d0cdb8e4b853/1c2132138a9f8568?show_docid=1c2132138a9f8568</guid>
  <author>
  m...@nnn.com
  ( n0 b o)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:16:55 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Century winter 2010 in Europe</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/b78d05318675dc6a/8b9e74d16713e6a0?show_docid=8b9e74d16713e6a0</link>
  <description>
  Yes we know! &lt;br&gt; Hot weather is caused by . &lt;br&gt; . GLOBAL WARMING! &lt;br&gt; . EXTREME WEATHER! &lt;br&gt; . THE ENVIRONMENT FIGHTING BACK! &lt;br&gt; Cold weather is caused by . &lt;br&gt; . a dry air mass and clear skies. &lt;br&gt; . a cold front. &lt;br&gt; . nothing in particular. &lt;br&gt; Warmest Regards &lt;br&gt; Bon_0 &lt;br&gt; &amp;quot;It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/b78d05318675dc6a/8b9e74d16713e6a0?show_docid=8b9e74d16713e6a0</guid>
  <author>
  o...@mmm.com
  (bn 0o)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:08:12 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/061bf9032c70a168?show_docid=061bf9032c70a168</link>
  <description>
  In article &amp;lt;hi5uar0...@news4.newsguy.com&amp;gt; , &lt;br&gt; I don&#39;t go around ever saying this - but if I did I would probably mean &lt;br&gt; it was self-evident or something to be assumed for now, it would depend &lt;br&gt; on the context. Care to supply one?
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/061bf9032c70a168?show_docid=061bf9032c70a168</guid>
  <author>
  doraymeridt...@optusnet.com.au
  (dorayme)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:40:14 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/5ca9867da7bd882c?show_docid=5ca9867da7bd882c</link>
  <description>
  I see. When you say that something is &amp;quot;axiomatic&amp;quot; do you mean that you are &lt;br&gt; stating an axiom or do you mean that you are deducing something from axioms?
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/ed602d5c986e5fff/5ca9867da7bd882c?show_docid=5ca9867da7bd882c</guid>
  <author>
  jclarke.use...@cox.net
  (J. Clarke)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:24:22 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
