|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 8:40 am: |       |
For some reason Mephisto feels compelled to tell me that,
"Plato's Republic is the focus of some very serious post-graduate work in a number of academic disciplines, e.g., political science, anthropology, and literary criticism."
Well, duh.
But of course, I wasn't saying Plato's work was exclusively for undergraduates. I was saying that his use of it in his original post was an elementary and undergraduate level one.
If he can't read my prose, I wonder how he's managed to read Plato's.
The explanation that follows, while chock full of historical tastiness, does nothing to change my opinion. All this stuff is just for dramatic effect. There's no real philosophy of any significant sort taking place either in his or in Radka's work as far as I can see.
As to why they feel compelled to use the language, well, I have my own suspicions about that. But it doesn't really matter.
All the best,
--John
PS: Thanks for the corps joke, even if it was a bit of a stretch.
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Can I get some of you guys to direct your lively debating and critical abilities towards my Aaron Kosminski theory at ../4922/11112.html"#DEDDCE"> |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Hi everyone,
Just a word, before I leave, about logic.
Truth and validity are two different things.
A syllogism is valid when its structure is sound regardless of the truth of its terms.
For instance, the following syllogism is valid.
All birds can fly.
Penguins are birds.
Therefore, penguins can fly.
Of course, Ally is right, Opus isn't getting airborne. But that doesn't make the syllogism invalid. It simply makes it false. In this case, one of the premises is false ("All birds can fly") and so is the conclusion. However the structure of the syllogism remains valid.
On the other hand, the following syllogism is not valid.
Some birds can fly.
Robins are birds.
Therefore, Robins can fly.
Here, the terms of the syllogism happen to be true. But the argument is nonetheless invalid, since in its form the premises do not necessarily lead to the conclusion.
In the first syllogism, if the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be.
If all birds could fly and penguins were birds than they too would have to be able to fly, no matter what.
In the second syllogism, even if the premises were true, the conclusion could still be false. Even if some birds could fly and Robins were birds, it would still be possible for Robins to be flightless given the initial premise.
Truth is an entirely separate matter from validity.
I'm not sure that helps us here much, but I thought I'd offer the clarification in case anyone was confused.
Thanks, and best of luck as I step out the door,
--John
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 646
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
Fine John, be semantical. I will restate my post because you are correct, I should not be so sloppy with my terms. The syllogism is valid, the argument is not, because the premises are not true. Just because a syllogism follows a valid format, don't make it so.
 |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 412
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
Ally,
Well said. Period.
Mikey |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 647
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
P.S. Thought I should clarify that the valid syllogism under discussion was the one relating to the penguin.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Hi
If my early post was a bit messy that was because I had an exam. However, I still am not sure what quoting sociologists has to do with the theory A?R????????
There you go maybe I am stupid because i am not a professor?!
Jennifer |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 648
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
I won't weigh in on the origin of your stupidity, Jennifer, but arguments are organic. They grow, they evolve.
Radka's entire theory is based on a hodgepodge of philosophies. The argument is going to be likewise hodgepodge.
|
Brian Rice
Police Constable
Username: Saucy
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 7:39 pm: | |
Mephisto,
You command of the English language would, in fact, make Noah Webster blush. I speak for all of us when I say we are are humbled by your grammatical expertise. You are indeed the great Mephistopheles, and I the damned Faust. You even mentioned an anus as a alimentary canal!!!! I bow to your great omnipotence, while jeering at my lowly life status. You are indeed the most eloquent scribe whose words are the most hauntingly beautiful symbols I have ever laid my eyes upon. Good show. Good Show. Just to let you in on a secret, my MS Word has a synonym finder also. Pray tell, what do your meanderings have to do with anything we are debating on this post?
Anyway, back to the discussion at hand. What were were talking about on this post? Something about a wannabe Fallen Angel telling Plato about p + q = penguin? Am I right?
Hasta lumbago. (Whatever that means)
Brian
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Ally,
so kind thank you so very much!!!
Brian,
that post was on the mark!!
How did you manage to be so spot on!!
Jennifer |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
Just catching up - hello Mephs me old mate. 
I often think of you and wonder how you are doing. Bless you for all that good but dangerous work you have done since September 2001 in your own land and overseas. It reminds me how easily and quickly the various inmate squabbles here can and should pale into virtual insignificance.
As I say each day as I return home from work (in a busy solicitors' office, where we all get abuse hurled at us on more or less an hourly basis, whatever our job description) "Oh well, at least no one has died here today".
Carry on chaps and chapesses.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on June 16, 2004) |
Liz Hillard
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 6:26 pm: | |
Dear all,
Right, so I'm sure that I will come off as very naive. I have found the level of conversation on this thread to be so high that I am having a great deal of trouble comprehending the minutiae. BUT, there seems to be a great deal of logical BS going about. I studied syllogisms back in college and the main point that I learned from them was that they don't apply very well to "real life". Of course, being of an extistential bent, I don't hold much stock in psychology either. I will say that Mr. Radka is obviously a very bright guy, but that his method (at least when he uses it in his posts) strikes me as being less than rigorous. For example, forgive me if I just quote some stuff that I saw on these pages...
David,
"Your premise doesn't really hold. Levy had no assurances that the killer would in fact stop". Levy had no assurances that the killer wouldn't get caught in the act thereby unleashing the anti-jewish feeling". This argument is irrelevant on two counts. First, Radka's premise is an element of inductive reasoning, and as such, it doesn't have to hold to anything, i.e., be valid. It simply has to provide probable justification for the conclusion (Benfield: personal conversation, 2003), therefore, the point is moot. Your alternatives aren't any more (or any less) plausible than Radka's claim. They lack utility because they don't weaken his argument. Second, your argument is self-defeating. Radka's argument seeks to establish the necessary conditions of probability using modus ponens:
if p, then q
p
therefore q.
Your argument for sufficient conditions is modus tollens, which negates both antecedent and consequence:
if p, then q
~ q
therefore ~ p
Therefore, your argument is a dead issue. "
The writer is questioning your premise, not your conclusion. Your conclusions are deductive, it's (one of) the premises (in this sense, interpretations) that is the problem. He is questioning your premise via empirical means, i.e. the same means upon which you formulated your premise. The premise cannot be attacked "deductively" but it can be falsified. In fact, if it can't be falsified, I'd call it a not a logical premise, but religion. For example you say that "It [the premise] simply has to provide probable justification for the conclusion." Okay, premise (empirically derived): the earth is finite and flat. Conclusion: If we walk far enough we will fall off it. The premise justifies the conclusion, but the conclusion is simply untrue. The writer is suggesting that your argument is not invalid, but unsound. (I'm terribly sorry if I am being condescending in any way).
Best,
Liz
Okay, so that was really incoherent. I will say that I admire your logic, Mr. Radka, but, again, you are only allowed so many premises!
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:28 pm: | |
Mr. Hamm writes:
“1. David, You've just posted:
>>The German grammar and exact word meaning and referent don't matter--you are missing my point completely. All the Ripper was looking for was some kind of a rhyme or other simplistic malapropistic misuse of language that secretly conveyed what he wanted said at the moment. It is illiterate, ungrammatical, mispelled in English, semantically faulty, but what's the problem with that? "Juwes" is supposed to sound like "Jews" and thus to refer to Levy, his companions, and in a more distant sense to Schwartz and the Pipe man if he were Jewish. This is made clear in the Summary. FORGET ALL GRAMMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS.}
But what is made clear in the summary is that the interpretation of Juwe as "sunday school children" is exceptionally important because this is the "threat" the killer is sending to Levey (you'll be treated like Jews who become Christians; shunned by your friends, family, and community - remember). In other words, all of this information pertaining to your interpretation of Juwes as stated in your theory, is an entirely appropriate area of discourse. If your offered definition is incorrect, then the conclusions you draw from your definition are also incorrect (A conclusion based upon a false premise is also false.”
>>My response: My offered definition is incorrect in a semantical sense only. I DELIBERATELY offered it as semantically incorrect in the Summary, in full knowledge that it was incorrect. However incorrect, it is workable as a communication device in 1888 provided the intended 1888 recipients think about it in consideration of their roles as Jewish witnesses to a Jewish Whitechapel murderer, as the murderer foolishly assumes they will. They supposedly are going to be able to tune into the rhyme of “Juwes” to “Jews” from German to English and pick up the discrete meaning and threat. Since it is workable as a communication device to them, and since it is intelligible as such to us today, what’s your problem? How do you figure my “offered definition is incorrect” in anything more than a mere semantic sense?
Any misuse of semantics may be workable as a communication device, provided the recipient of the communication is clued-in. For example, imagine an auto repair garage with an owner and one assistant. It is the assistant’s job function to fetch various tools and other items for the owner. The two speak English, and the custom of the shop is to use the correct terms for all the tools except one: the lug wrench. It is understood between the two men that the term “lug wrench” will never be used in the shop, and that instead when that particular tool is referenced the term for it will be “toilet paper” instead. Thus the term “toilet paper” is ambiguous in that shop apart from the context of use; i.e., it may mean either (incorrectly) a tool to remove a tire from a car or (correctly) the bathroom hygiene product, depending on usage. Therefore whenever the assistant hears the owner call to him “Get me the toilet paper!” he needs to consider context—if the request comes when the owner is crouching next to the tire of a car, he knows to fetch the tool. If the request comes from inside the bathroom with the door shut, he understands the owner has run out of the hygiene product, and he fetches that for him instead. This arrangement as a whole is entirely workable and comprehensible as communication, albeit semantically incorrect. In the case of the graffitus, the murderer figures his communication targets will understand the communicated meaning of the incorrect usage by the context, the same as our auto repair owner figures his assistant will do above.
2. “Basic Logic, which I'm sure someone like yourself who claims to have presented philosophic work at conferences fully understands).”
>>The use of the term “claims” above is supposed to connote that you don’t believe what I say about myself. This is in turn a way to lead other people reading here to also not believe what I say. But please get this straight—NOBODY IS HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE WHAT I SAY. What we are here to do is evaluate the merits of my solution to the case. It doesn’t matter if I am a liar or not, or whether I am Chinese or not. The solution to the case is not a matter of what I say, it is a matter of what my argument says.
3. “Now, you've just admitted, or conceeded the point, that the meaning of Juwes doesn't matter in the message. That means the idea that the message contains the threat you impart upon it is false. This latter statement is based upon the fact that the threat contained in the message was centred upon the notion that Juwes had a specific, Christian oriented, definition. It does not, and so the message no longer contains that threat.”
>>The term “Juwe” well might have had a Christian oriented definition, among other definitions. Whether the term “Juwe” did have that meaning in 1888 or not, the graffitus means exactly the same thing. In context, it says to the three Jewish men in Duke Street: “If you turn me in to the gentile police, the Jewish people of Whitechapel will be blamed for my misconduct, and the result may be a pogrom against them, and then they will then retaliate against you for turning me in, because you could have just as easily not done so.”
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:19 pm: | |
“Even if JUWE was short for Jugendwerk in 1888, surely JUWES still doesn't make sense. If it meant what you are trying to make it mean then it would say "The Juwe are the men...." not "The Juwes...." as Juwe already indicates an organization.”
>>JtR was only interested in the rhyme and the malapropistic juggling of word meanings for his project, not correct usage. We are well aware that the usage is incorrect.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:17 pm: | |
“…since Radka believes that the relatively outdated Cleckley has all the answers, this makes further discussions on the subject rather difficult.”
>>In what specific ways is Cleckley inadequate as a source regarding the case solution? Please give full elucidation of your general comment above, 2-3 pages in length and in detail. Show us you know what you are talking about. Compare Cleckley’s specific positions on psychopathy to those of more current psychiatrists, evaluating the differences. Don’t just jump on the bandwagon making general derogatory comments. It shows a lack of independence on your part.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
quick look-in post, out of order:
Mephisto,
Just completed reading through the new posts after having been away for five days. I much appreciate your interest, and find your perspectives refreshing and interesting. I'm thinking about what I'd like to say of them, and trying to figure out who you must be...? I hope your stay here is a long and happy one!
David
...now I'm returning to the archives, to respond to posts in chronological sequence...still in May 13... |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:23 pm: | |
Mr. Norder wrote:
“Hi David,
"Why is Mr. Norder allowed to post specious insults like this"
That wasn't an insult, it was commentary on your theory and your method of debate.”
My response: Anyone can post a comment, they’re a dime a dozen. From the perspective the truthfulness and utility of the theory in question, a comment establishes nothing. If you want to debate, debate. State in detail your values concerning what I’ve written. Improve your current status as a degraded, non-participating entity in the debate. Take a debating position, do something.
I wrote: "This is not an attempt to address any issues in my theory"
Mr. Norder responded:
“Sure it was... it was addressing the "center" of your theory.”
My response: Non-sequitor. It addressed nothing, participated in no logical argument. “Fallacy of the degraded participant,” if there is such a thing.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
Hi Brian "saucy" Rice,
Indeed?
I like to quote posts I'm replying to, but, well I looked for something to quote and can't find _anything_ of _any_ relevance that you say.
(Did *I* actually just write that? "hemustadoneit" complaining of the quality of others postings.)
Your previous post in this thread was waaaay off the mark, embarrasing, inappropriate and sheer tripe and if it was from an unregistered poster I would hope it would have been "plonked".
I somehow don't think I'll look for the missing 2 posts from you - the 2 I've seen are enough.
Please go find some synonmyms or something.
Sheesh, is he the future for America? Any American want to apologize for him?
Cheerio,
ian
PS You speak for none of us - certainly not me... and puhleese don't bother replying
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
1.“…there is nothing of substance to debate because David's theory is based wholly on faith. It is a belief that only he can divine what happened in 1888 and that whatever he imagines happened must have happened . . . or was meant to happen.”
>>I have no such belief, that “…only I can divine what happened in 1888...” You are trying to make me sound like Oliver Cromwell, who claimed he’d spoken with God and therefore that people ought to follow him. This is a typically immature way of slurring someone on your part. If people accepted your words uncritically, they’d join you in kicking me down, which for you would be a source of real pride and validation, I take it. To the contrary, my theory is based on logic and the case evidence, and is transparent to anyone’s analysis, point by point.
2.“That the apron part found on Goulston Street was exactly half of the whole is important to the theory. That we don't know it was actually a half of the apron (nor even that JtR left it there) is not important because David believes JtR meant to cut it in half, even if he didn't.”
>>According to the evidence, JtR made an effort to slice the apron longitudinally down its middle with his signature knife. Perhaps he didn’t entirely succeed in the dark of Mitre Square, pressed for time as he was. But he sent Lusk exactly half the longitudinally divided kidney, didn’t he? And he utilized the symmetry on Eddowes’ face to communicate, too. Notice that all of these appear together—we don’t have symmetrical facial mutilations in Hanbury Street, a half-sliced apron in Buck’s Row, or a postal kidney from Miller’s Court, do we? My critic above affords himself the luxury of considering my position a subjective one only from his false perspective of disjointedness—once the evidence is considered holistically, the alleged subjectivity disappears. My eros leads me to make real connections; his position is essentially masturbation.
3.“That JtR cut tailoring marks into Catharine Eddowes cheeks is important to the theory. That we don't know that they were intended to be tailoring marks (or that they actually correspond to real tailors' marks) is unimportant because David believes JtR meant them to be.”
>>It really doesn’t matter if they were tailor’s marks or not. They were communication devices in any event, and the attempted communication is the same in any event. Remember Levy?
4. “That Juwes is a contraction for a German phrase meaning "Sunday School" is (or was) important to the theory. That no one can find any such contemporary usage is unimportant because David believes that is what JtR meant.”
>>It really doesn’t matter if the usage was contemporary or not. The graffitus means what it means in any event. Remember the Duke Street Jews?
5.“And on and on and on. The theory is simply built upon what David believes to be true and nothing more. When necessary, David believes a witness lied. When necessary, David believes police officials were guilty of misfeasance and nonfeasance.”
>>The theory is built on the chronology of the case evidence logically linked together in virtue of the nature of the murderer’s pathology. What could be more natural and logical than that? I never ask my reader to believe anything that is not verified by the case evidence. The matter of Levy lying is not simply my belief, please analyze for yourself his comment to Harris, his behavior toward the reporter, his inquest testimony, the marks on Eddowes’ face, the extraordinariness of the identification, and the whole rest of the case. I do not believe Robert Anderson “was guilty of misfeasance and nonfeasance.” I believe he was fooled by a psychopath and by psychopath’s victim attempting to escape. These situations happen all the time to people being trapped and squeezed by psychopaths—read the literature and see for yourself.
6. “Even the mysterious center (William Butler Yeats had his own ideas on that) is just blind faith. David believes JtR was a psychopath, so he had to be. While there is no proof for that assertion, it actually isn't a bad tenet of faith with which to start. That is, David's understanding of a psychopath seems to be that they are capable of any behavior necessary to sustain his belief so long as it does not positively violate the laws of physics.”
>>Psychopaths are gravely and fatally defective people, operating permanently on a level of zero emotional maturity. Their irrationality is gross and obvious, their disability with respect to community life permanent and often total. My critic above doesn’t understand what these criteria mean in terms of the value of a human life. Their effect on a given psychopath and his behavior is over his head, unfortunately.
7. “Now this is not to say that David's theory might not be correct; like the pig who can't smell still finding an occasional acorn, David may have stumbled upon the truth. But, to accept the theory is to engage in a blind leap of faith. Obviously, David believes in his theory and has such unwavering faith in his intellect that to debate him on points of fact or logic is a futile exercise for both sides.”
>>My critic has in his post not advanced any logical proposition regarding either the case evidence or my theory on it. Why doesn’t he even try? I wish he’d show us what he could do—he sure talks a good fight.
8. “It seems to me time to move on. Having solved one puzzle for the ages, David and whatever acolytes he may have attracted ought to consider some other challenge; perhaps "what song the Syrens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women." Then everyone else can get back to discussing fact-based rather than faith-based interpretations.”
>>What my critic wants most of all is to be left to his opium, the facts, which in our field are smoked in countless thousands of varieties. Let us leave him to them! But for those who wish to learn how to think clearly, I’m here to teach.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004. |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
Dear Ms. Pegg,
You misunderstand my question. I'm not at all interested in your private life? After reading a number of your messages, I became curious about the extent of your education, and nothing more.
Based on your post of Monday, June 14, 2004, you have also missed my initial response to your question? On Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 6:43 am, you wrote: " Mephisto (ie David - no?) Where exactly did you refer to emile durkheim in your post? To what ends has the division of labour in modern societies impacted on David (ie your) theory about psychopathic Jews?".
This was my original response:
"The concept of "social structure" is the brain-child of Emile Durkheim. You may recall his theory: social cohesion influences social behavior, and as a result there are no individuals in society, only cultural institutions exist etc. I used Durkheim's idea of social structure in my reply to another person, therefore, I'm obligated to cite him as my source".
What are you reading!!!!!!! Go back and re-read that message!!!!; it should !!!!!!! be obvious to you "Where exactly" I !!!!!!!! referred to Durkheim's !!!!!! concept, otherwise!!!!!!!, you wouldn't have noticed that I !!!!!!! cited him in the first place. Hint: It was posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 4:59 pm.
"Again i will ask what does Emile Durkheim, Mr Radcliffe Brown or any other sociologist have to do with the theory that JTR was a psychopathic Jew ".
Oh my Ga-odd!!!!!, again I'll tell you. In a messaged I posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 11:01 pm, I claimed that: "Radka went out of his way, it seems, to tell his readers what they're looking at…He clearly states that what he plans to tell his readers, is why the events happened the way they did. And this is a crucial point, because an explanation of why, is not an explanation of how; why something happens is relativism (Boas 1947); how it happens is structural-functionalism (Radcliffe-Brown 1952) ".
Well gag me with a spoo-oon!!!!, I am shurrre you are not as familiar with anthropological theory as you would have me believe. In 1896, Franz Boas published his critique of the Comparative method, the 19th century theoretical paradigm, which up until then, guided the ethnographic study of "human society" (electric document- URL available upon request). Boas' theory of cultural relativism, explained why each culture developed according to local conditions and circumstances, I am shurrre!!!!!!. Alfred Radcliffe-Brown synthesized Bronislaw Malinowski's paradigm of functionalism, which explained how!!!!!! societies functioned, with his idea of structuralism, i.e., how societies compared cross culturally, and gag me, he gave us the ultimate HOW theory; it's called structural-functionalism? I hope this explanation clarifies my train of thought for you!!!!!!!. If you continue to have trouble understanding what I said, and why I said it, then I suggest that you print this out, and ask one of your teachers to help you make the connection? fer shurrrre.........
good luck!!!!!!
Mephisto
Mr. Rice,
Thank you for the sarcastic butt smooch, but it isn't necessary, I already know who I am.
I responded to you the way I did, initially, because your message wasn't connected in any way with the discussion, it was obviously meant as a personal attack against me. Why did you do that? You don't know me. We've never discussed anything, we've never disagreed passionately or otherwise over any issue, but for some unknown reason, you felt it was necessary to mock, ridicule, and diminish me. Is this how you normally interact with people you don't know? Or are you someone elses dupe?
Regarding your current post. Go back and re-read the messages I've posted on this issue, the reasons for my comments are self-evident.
If my point of view is different than yours, and you'd like to talk about it in a reasonable way, then I'd be happy to do so. But if that's not to your liking, then I think we should just leave each other be.
Mephisto
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hello RJ,
I have a few observations I want to share with you regarding your message of Friday, June 11, 2004 - 5:14 pm:
My comments follow the sequence of your message.
1) You wrote:
"Radka claims as his 'center' the diagnosis of 'psychopath.' To his credit, he goes into some detail of explaining what he means by this. All well and good (within reason). Next he majestically announces that by knowing that the killer is a psychopath: 'We give ourselves a chance to solve the case by positing, for the first time in Ripperology, what we should be looking for in the case evidence. We become able to determine what elements are related, and what
unrelated, by their logical relation to the center.' (Item #1)………And you call me vague?? Cleckly has joined hands with Hegel, Anderson, and Hazelwood and has gone-a-profilin'".
When I read the sections you quote in context, I get a completely different impression. Radka begins his summary by stating: "(1) It is that whoever he might have been, the Whitechapel murderer was a psychopath". I'll grant you this much, his prose are a difficult read, but I get the general idea of what he's saying. I think that he looked at the nature of the Whitechapel murders, and began asking himself some questions–what events or conditions would compel someone to mutilate another human being like this; why would somebody act on those things; how could a rational mind possibly justify these excesses; was a rational man capable of this type of behavior? Probably not. Then the murderer was not a rational man, he had to have some kind of psychological disorder. The more I thought about these propositions, the more I was convinced that Radka must have used a similar process to identify first cause. It follows, that that conclusion would become the theoretical starting point of his research. Radka confirms as much with his "epistemological center", i.e., the killer was a psychopath.
He begins the summary with a pre-amble that is structured like the introduction of a good expository essay, i.e., he clearly states his methodology: he combed through the historical record, looking for material that supports his theory; his sources of information: "the works of the psychiatrists Dr. Hervey M. Cleckley,[i] Dr. Robert D. Hare,[ii] and Dr. David Thoreson Lykken[iii]"; and the decisive factor that formed his theory: "It is that whoever he might have been, the Whitechapel murderer was a psychopath".
I see Radka's summary as a classic, deductive theoretical format, i.e., he generated a theory; crafted a number of working hypotheses to test his theory, and made observations based on the historical record to confirm his theory.
2)
"No, I'm afraid I don't accept this. Knowing that the killer is a psychopath does not allow Mr. Radka to determine what he is calling the 'case evidence'".
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here RJ, I don't see Radka determining the evidence, nor do I see him "Knowing that the killer is a psychopath". What I do get from reading the summary, is that Radka formed his theory that the killer was a psychopath after reading various accounts of, as you put it, the \i {'case evidence'}". Did you mean to say interpret rather then determine? That would make more sense to me, but I don't want to send up a straw man, or assume that's what you meant. I'll reserve comment on this until hear from you.
3)
"\i {He quickly moves on to steps #2, #3, #4 and so on, and pounces on our shoulders and whispers in our ears that the case evidence is the Lusk letter, the cry of Lipski, the reward money, 'Juwes', the uteri and the mystique of the controlling Jewish mother, Aaron Kosminski disrupting the family unit, etc. etc.}"...."\i {Am I missing something? Is there a missing step or two somewhere here? Where is the connecting tissue?}".
I think we have something in common on this subject, but for different reasons. I think Radka's having a little fun with us. He does mention that he wrote his account in a "playful mode", which may be a reference to his hedgerow verbosity. The summary is, at best, an arduous, and perplexing read. After reviewing the steps you mention in context (and so on), I found that what we've have here, is exactly what Radka said he'd give us, i.e., a series of working hypotheses, and incomplete thoughts. His opening statement implies, and not without reason, that we can expect to find greater detail in his thesis. I believe this assessment of his presentation is accurate for two reasons:
1 He makes it a point, to specifically differentiate between the purpose of the Summary, and the purpose of the Thesis, i.e., "The Summary is a full and concise statement of the logical argument manifesting the case solution. The Thesis provides a common language setting for the argument". In other words, the summary lays out the decisive factors that engendered his theory: "the Lusk letter, the cry of Lipski, the reward money, 'Juwes', the uteri and the mystique of the controlling Jewish mother, Aaron Kosminski disrupting the family unit, etc. etc.", each vignette is accompanied by a brief account of his solution. The theory, he tells us, will provide the connective tissue that you're clamoring for.
2 The theory is a work in progress. I'm not suggesting that the "The Epistemological Center Of The Case" isn't complete, I am suggesting that based on the response from his Casebook sounding board, he is still gathering documentation to support his claims, and is therefore, still in the editing process. If the thesis was ready to go, we would have had it in some form by now. If you think about it for a minute, it's not a bad idea (his). His first book, he's not all that sure about how to proceed; doesn't trusts professional editors, index writers, etc for help, they may steal his ideas. So, what does he do? He copyrights his intellectual property, then brings the rough framework to a ready-made contingent of aficionados for a free critique.
One last thing, and I believe it's significant. Did you notice the poverty of citations, and the sparse bibliography? Do you think that Radka is the kind of person who would pass-up an opportunity to impress us with a lengthy reading list? I don't, not unless he had a purpose. I won't burden you, or anyone else with my speculation in this matter, but I feel certain that David R. Radka has positioned himself well, and eventually will have the last laugh on all of us. In fact, I believe that every demeaning message, and every hurtful insult, only serves to broaden his grin.
RJ, if you don't mind, I'd like to finish this post responding to Ally's message. I will pick-up the thread from my previous message to you, with my next posting.
I'll talk with you then.
Mephisto
Hello Ally,
You wrote:
1)
"You are attempting to use deductive reasoning to support an inductive argument?".
Sorry if I'm being a little dense here, but I don't know which sentence or paragraph of my reply, this comment applies to.
2)
"Inductive reasoning doesn't mean you can throw logic out the window...it likewise only works if the premises are determined to be factual and valid... and related to one another. You cannot just make any random observation and claim it is valid by virtue of inductive reasoning".
I never suggested that inductive critical review could function without logic. What I tried to point out to you was: that inductive reasoning does not deal with the terms valid or invalid. It deals exclusively with determining to what degree of probability a premise or premises supports a conclusion(s). The contents of inductive arguments are assessed in terms of their strength, i.e., strong, fair-to-middling (For lack of a better term), or weak.
Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is concerned with the form of an argument and not its content. Only deductive arguments can be assessed in terms of absolute certainty, i.e., either valid or invalid; I'll use two examples from the following paragraph to show you what I mean, and how easy it is to confuse the terms of deductive certainty with those of inductive probability.
You wrote:
"If Radka could prove that Levy was related to Kosminski, then he could claim by inductive reasoning that he was anderson's witness as the observation that would be a motive not to identify him. If Radka could prove that Levy was Anderson's witness, then he could claim that he was related to Kosminski. But he cannot use two unproven claims to mutually support each other and call them valid. That's the kind of shoddy lack-of-logic that is turning the world into mindless mental midgits".
Example 1)
You accuse Radka of claiming that:
a Levy is related to Kosminski.
b Levy was Anderson's witness.
c Levy refused to identify Kosminski because they're related.
Example 2)
Your critical argument claims that:
a Radka is attempting to use inductive reasoning because:
"If Radka could prove that Levy was related to Kosminski, then he could claim by inductive reasoning…..".
b Radka is attempting to use deductive reasoning because:
"he cannot use two unproven claims to mutually support each other and call them valid".
c Radka's claims are example of wrong-headed logic.
"That's the kind of shoddy lack-of-logic that is turning the world into mindless mental midgits".
Question 1: Is your argument in Example 1) an accurate representation of Radka's claim?
Question 2: Is your view of Radka's argument, in Example 1) Valid or invalid; true or false?
Question 3: Is your argument in Example 1) Deductive or inductive?
Question 4: Is your argument in Example 2) Valid or invalid; true or false, strong or weak, ?
Question 5: Is your argument in Example 2) a good argument?
Answer 1: I don't know. You don't use quotations or citations to support your claims, I don't have any way to check your sources; you don't provide enough evidence to persuade me.
Answer 2: I can't tell, not enough data is provided. I prefer to suspend judgment.
Answer 3: Inductive. The conclusion contains more information than the premises.
Answer 4: It is weak. The premises are contradictory, therefore, the conclusion is impossible.
Answer 5: No. It's bad. You're claiming that Radka's argument can be both, inductive and deductive at the same time.
The point that I was trying to make in my initial response to you was that you were demanding that Radka provide you with absolute proof to support his conclusions. Why should he. He knows he can get away with it, because no one takes him seriously. Example 1)shows that Radka's argument is inductive, therefore, he only needs the premises to support, not guarantee his claim.
In Example 2a you seem to think that if Radka proves an argument inductively that it is unreliable, or in some way not meaningful, and should be discounted. Ally, there is no such thing as a strictly deductive science, because technology is growing at such a rapid pace, today's theories are tomorrows research projects.
I'm currently working on a project, that will invalidate a long-standing theory, because new technology gives me an opportunity to show that this theory doesn't produce valid proofs, and in fact, it never did.
All scientific disciplines depend on inductive reasoning to advance new theories, even the most empirical sciences could not function without inductive generalization.
In any event, I hope this explanation has helped clarify my position for you.
Hey, how'd you do in grad. school?
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
1.“And once again David, you've completely missed the plot.
As I indicated, even if Jugdenwerk could be shown to be in use in 1888, you still have the major problem that the word does not refer to Christianity, it refers to "youth work".
>>It may technically REFER to youth work, but it is frequently USED by the Christians for their youth work, and a person hearing or reading the word would have to THINK of the various meanings and usages in context, thereby establishing the communication link the murderer wants. You are setting up your own fascistically naïve personal rules for the use of language here. You’ve got to be more sophisticated than that to understand the case solution.
2. “Meaning, a Jewish organisation could have "Judaism youth work", there could be non-religious youth work, etc, all refered to as Jugdenwerk with the appropriate qualifier. Without the qualifier, the word is neutral. The grafitto does not contain any qualifier, and so to suggest that Juwes in the context of the graffito is a contraction for Jugdenwerk still does not bring in the Christian aspect that is critical to your theory.”
>>The qualifier was the fact that the Tsar had expelled the Jews for not converting to Christianity, the positioning of the graffitus in the Jewish street market, the text of the graffitus, the fact that the graffitus appeared following the murder of Eddowes where three Jews walked past the murderer and his victim beforehand, and on and on. The qualifier was massively present in many contexts to the intended targets of the communication, had they focused their minds on the graffitus and their role in it.
3. “And, without that Christian aspect, Juwes as the contraction makes absolutely no sense as an interpretation, while Juwes as a misspelling of Jews makes perfect sense. Conclusion? Your theory makes no sense as currently presented. No amount of insults or avoiding the point or self denial gets around the basic fact that your theory is flawed at this point.”
>>Do you realize what you’ve done? You’ve “analyzed” the whole meaning of the term “Juwe” as used in the graffitus with absolutely no reference to context. But didn’t I make clear in the Summary that context was a key element of its meaning? So all you’ve done is torn my position out of its context, and gone off in an arbitrary direction. I certainly would not be proud of such a performance if I were you.
4. “Anyway, what about that definition of "epistomological centre"? As I've said, it does not appear to exist as a philosophical term. Your continued reluctance to provide a definition for this rather unusual phrase does not instill much confidence in me with reference to your claims of a philosophical background. I'm asking for a definition to put to rest some doubts that are arising.”
>>See my post on the original question, which has not been sent to the queue yet. It should be on the boards in 1-3 days.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:24 pm: | |
“Honesty David, you are obviously an intelligent man, but your conplicated approach to these murders, is so intellectual, and to be quite honest, to attempt to delve into the mind of a man living 116 years ago, going by modern day science, is worthless. We all eccept that the killer was sick, he may have also been cunning, but dispite all of our endeavours is still nameless.”
>>Make no mistake, I NEVER “attempt to delve into the mind of a man living 116 years ago” in my work. What I do is FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE. I never presume to divine what he was thinking at any point in time. I instead determine his psychopathic projects according to the empirical evidence. ALL I say is laid back on the evidence one hundred per cent for verification. Given that the evidence is what it is, his projections must have been at least closely similar to what I say they were. Fair enough?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
Hi Mephisto (if thats how you spell it)
Number one - do not take that patronising tone with me. You tried to use my educational background to score points - I was not implying you wanted to know about my private life (the fact i am a student is in my profile and is not a secret to members of this message board or your self). However your whole identity apparently is a secret. Perhaps this is because you do not want to express your views in public under your real name. Perhaps it is because you are the anti christ of ripperology - who knows!
Secondly - I have read all your posts to my detriment. Do not kid yourself I am fully aware of what you are saying to me before i answer. However, I do not see what structural or any other kind of functional.sim has to do with Mr Radka's (hello David)theory about psychopathic Jews. I am aware of where you used it - not why you felt the need. There is no need to quote me i am quite aware of what I said.
Thirdly- i am not criticising your academic merits of referencing. Rather I am QUESTIONING your use of functionalist Durkhiemian concepts in a psychological argument.
Fourthly - if you would like to discuss the merits of sociological theory i would be only too happy, as it has NOTHING to do with A?????R?????? then I would advise you take it to email
5- i do not need to ask my lecturers (i am at big girl school now!) anything as they have taught me it.
Also - I will use !!! as much as I like - they are not intended as an insult.
ps my name is Jennifer feel free to use it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Message edited by jdpegg on June 18, 2004)
Jennifer |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Here is where you mention Durkheim for the first time Meph
On April 26th, Donald Souden wrote:
"What you have done is compose an outline for a novel or screen treatment of Jack the Ripper. Interesting and inventive in parts, but as often happens with early efforts at fiction it is rather contrived and presents a blinkered view of life". Oh, it that so. Well tell me Mr. Preminger, what makes your view of humanity any more compelling than Radka's? For that matter, what makes it any different? It's a big freakin' world out there Moe, and the way you're describing it, indicates that you've got a handle on the social structures and cultural institutions of every human organization on the planet (Durkheim 1947).
Now by your own admission you quoted Mr Durkheim one of the founders of sociological thinking there without actually reffering at all to Mr radkas theory. You use Durkheims name I note this - I have read your post. would you like me to demonstrate which other of your posts i have read
Though not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you want to take what you said and i said out of context again - feel free most of us have read the thread though we know what we said.
If you misunderstood i am so sorry
Jennifer |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Here is where you mention Durkheim for the first time Meph
On April 26th, Donald Souden wrote:
"What you have done is compose an outline for a novel or screen treatment of Jack the Ripper. Interesting and inventive in parts, but as often happens with early efforts at fiction it is rather contrived and presents a blinkered view of life". Oh, it that so. Well tell me Mr. Preminger, what makes your view of humanity any more compelling than Radka's? For that matter, what makes it any different? It's a big freakin' world out there Moe, and the way you're describing it, indicates that you've got a handle on the social structures and cultural institutions of every human organization on the planet (Durkheim 1947).
Now by your own admission you quoted Mr Durkheim one of the founders of sociological thinking there without actually reffering at all to Mr radkas theory. You use Durkheims name I note this - I have read your post. would you like me to demonstrate which other of your posts i have read
Thought not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you want to take what you said and i said out of context again - feel free most of us have read the thread though we know what we said.
If you misunderstood i am so sorry
Jennifer |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
J.T. Mephisto-- You have taken Mr. Radka gently by the hand, and have led him back into the realm of the theoretical.
"Today's theories are tomorrows research projects," you write, and go to some considerable trouble to argue that Radka's logic is both "valid", and that his method is along strictly classical and scientific lines. Well done.
But this, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand.
Mr. Radka is not stating that he has a theory. He is stating, even in his title, that it is a manifestation of the "case solution."
He is, in fact, stating that the theoretical is argued so brilliantly that it creates it's own critical mass and becomes true without empirical support. And this is where you and I part company, if, indeed, you are still walking with him at this point. In an odd way, you defend him by not taking him seriously; I, on the otherhand, take him to mean what he says and ask for an explanation. I also suggest you might quite possibly be wrong in predicting that it is merely a 'work in progress', because our theorist has been consistantly and adamantly uninterested in empirical support for his thesis.
I quote A.R. , Part #1--(my emphasis):
"We become able to determine what elements are related, and what unrelated, by their logical relation to the center. The case reaches solution as predication of all the evidence under psychopathy attains an adequate, critically appraisable holism. "
Note that: Holism is the solution.
Holism=solution.
Mr. Radka is insisting that the case is NOT solved when he provides empirical documentation that Levy was in Hove (for instance); the case is solved when the parts dancing around the center reaches the desired critical mass and is transmuted from base lead into the 'golden orb' --(a metaphor of Mr. Radka's that you might not be familiar with).
Some questions I would ask:
1. How precisely do we "critically appraise" Mr. Radka's 'holism'? Sounds like a bit of a problem. Do we merely judge it (as you are largely doing) by it's internal consistancy and it's competence in logic, or do you demand external (ie., empircal) confirmation? Would not the former only prove that it is logically 'valid' (in Prof. Omlor's sense) but not 'true'? I reckon I'm condemning Radka to the asylum for the theoretically insistant. ("A page of history is worth a volume of logic", Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said). Do you and I really even have an argument?
2. Sorry to be repetitive, but could you please translate the following in lieu of my above comments? "We become able to determine what elements are related, and what unrelated, by their logical relation to the center." This is still baffling. We can 'determine' which elements are related by their relation to the 'center'. But how do we know what that is? When it has "obtained" "holism." (Sounds like a rather self-contained system to me!) We identify the parts by the theoretical 'center' and when these parts reach the critical mass the 'whole' identifies and validates them. Sorry, Mephisto, I've never been very good at staring at my navel. I can only repeat my donkey questions. How does the 'center' (psychopathy) determine 'the parts'? Ie., that the Lusky kidney is indeed part of the actual 'case evidence', since, that, in turn, is what is used to validate the whole. At some point, you need to get back on the road to Empiricism, my friend; that's the straight dope from Mr. I. Kant. All you really seem to be allowing is that Cleckley's psychopathology gives Mr. Radka's chosen canon of 'case evidence' a certain amount of plausibility; he seems to be stating (to me) that it actually identifies and confirms it. It is self-referencing. I mean, honestly, I don't begrudge your efforts. In the generous spirit of the true Anthropologist you are willing to sit cross-legged swallow the peyote button and see where it might lead; excellent. I just can't associate such things with the solution of a criminal case.
3. Mr. Radka's entire 'case solution' is based on an a priori belief that the extant historical record contains enough data to allow 'the manifestation of the case solution.' He is confusing the concept of 'case evidence' with the concept of 'the historical record.' Question. Isn't he up against the age ol' conundrum of "garbage in, garbage out." ? It seems to me that he is not only operating on an insistance that historical record contains the solution, but is, in my estimation, rather naively insisting that what is only "Ripper lore" --the canon reified by the importance given to it in secondary sources, --- is the correct canon on which to base a theory. It's a rather cynical and Medieval idea at the core; the current canon of beliefs have become a type of Holy Writ. You state that A?R is "thinking outside the box", but I have suggested that it in fact holds the "case evidence" in too high esteem; the true solution is likely to be entirely fragmented. How do you address the possibility that there is no whole to begin with? In other words, I am not (as you suggest by your answer) condemning Radka's logic, only his a priori assumption, and the wisdom of stating that the extant record is sufficient as 'evidence.' Radka himself often refers to Alex Chisholm's 'post-modern' theory' -- in short, much of what is called the 'case evidence' is, in fact, comprised of numerous unrelated events. (I butcher it here). Of course Chisholm could be wrong and Radka right, but that is hardly the point. It seems to me that A?R side-steps the entire issue at the outset, while--because of its methodology and self-referencing-- can't wholly disprove it. Unless he finds the empirical support that he considers irrelevant, it still hangs like a black cloud over the thesis.
4. The founders of American-Anglo jurisprudence, in their mysterious wisdom, pitched their hopes on.... the rabble. Eek. Horrifying, isn't it? For some reason they didn't think it good enough to convince the Hegels and Cleckley's of the world. One has to prove their case to twelve angry barmaids, bankers, clerks, shop-keepers, and ditch diggers. I take it that you agree in principle?
RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on June 18, 2004) |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 147
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Uh, David, are you serious when you say you want a 2-3 page essay explaining why a book based upon 50+ year old research in clinical psychology is outdated? Because, I mean, come on, that doesn't take more than a sentence or two, and it's already been well covered by myself and other posters. Of course you say you are about a month behind reading posts, so perhaps you'll get there eventually.
And surely you must be joking when you say that it doesn't matter if the word "Juwe" wasn't used to mean Jugendwerk until the 1960s because you are sure that the killer meant it to be used that way in the Goulston Grafitto of 1888?
Between all that and Mephisto's extensive use of mid-1980's Valley Girl slang to try to insult another poster I feel like this thread is some sort of bizarre time warp. But then it is a lot less grounded in reality than most episodes of the Twilight Zone.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
HI,
I have to agree with you Dan - this thread is now beyond belief. It takes ages to read through and little of it seems to have anything to do with David's actually theory or his suspect.
David,
I don't think this thread is doing anything for your theory. It started off well enough but I think it has turned into chaos in places.
It means many people have started to ignore it.
I hope to do likewise but daren't promise anything after the last time,
regards
Jennifer |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
“Mr. Norder wrote: …At first I thought you had gotten confused and meant "psychotic" when you said "psychopath" (since your scenario doesn't fit the description of psychopathology, as detailed in previous messages above), but now it seems maybe you meant "psychic" instead.”
>>Please note Mr. Norder has never “detailed” ANYTHING on this thread. All he does is toss out brief generalizations, and then, later on, claim he’s right about them because they really weren’t brief and general, they were detailed! In order to figure out his lies, you need to be able to actually remember what he’s said before, something that Mr. Norder gives you no credit whatever for being able to do. And if you DO do this, as I do, then he scowls. I wouldn’t be proud of this myself, but hey, I’m not Dan. By the way, old bean, where’s my copy of the latest ‘Ripper Notes?’ Haven’t received it yet, and its already mid-June. You wouldn’t have put anything in there you wouldn’t want your Uncle Dave Radka to see, would you? Nah.
|
D, Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 2:32 pm: | |
1. “I have a question, not about the content of your theory, but rather I need a definition. You keep referring to the "epistemological centre". I've never come upon this particular phrase in philosophy. I've asked one of my friends in the philosophy department and he's never heard of anything being referred to as such, and felt it was a curious way to phrase things. We both, however, felt that it's quite possible that this is a phrase used by some particular author.”
>>The term may originate with me. I don’t recall it being used elsewhere, but it might have been. Please understand that you are coming at my work from the wrong direction entirely, if you want to properly evaluate and interpret it. What I mean to do in my work on the case is innovate logically. I think the case needs an innovator, because it has been sandbagged by decades of empiric fantasies. That means philosophical innovation, semantic innovation, innovation concerning the use of the syndrome of psychopathy, innovation concerning the value or meaning of the case evidence. You are not going to be able to determine if I am correct by “checking for previous uses of my thought forms,” as Mr. Norder simplistically attempts to do, because the reason I’m here is to evolve thought forms for the purpose to which I’ve set myself—solving the case. You need to know what I’m talking about in terms of the case evidence and related fields, then determine with your own senses whether my innovations are on the mark. This is not kid stuff—you can’t merely be some dink taking courses at state U to think you are necessarily catching the meaning. The sense of the solution of the case is in part an evolutionary step, and opposed to repeating and sinking back into decades of mediocrity. Think more in terms of an interpenetration of form and content.
Generally speaking, a center of epistemology, or something like it, would be found in philosophy when a single term is used to illuminate a wider field. Neoplatonists like Plotinus used it, and this is in the general sense what I am thinking of. In the case of the Whitechapel murders, psychopathy is the singular, central term. Don’t make this harder than it is.
2. “Anyway, such rambling aside, I would appreciate if you could provide a definition of "epistomolocial centre". I don't mean a listing of what you consider the "epis. centre of this particular case", but rather of the term in general. As it is fundamental to your approach, and as it is not a widely used terminology, it is important that you provide a definition so that those critiquing your theory may do so with a full understanding of your starting point. If you have coined the phrase yourself, then it is even more important that you provide a clear definition of what it is that you intend by such a term. Sorry for such a boaring request, but it would be most helpful and informative to everyone involved I suspect.”
>>We need to establish a critically determined starting point for Ripperology if we want to have a logical field of inquiry suitable for serious discussion. We pick up the gambit with the empiricists firmly in charge. Merely whores, they start anywhere, and remain unreflective on the effect their starting point has on the conduct of their examination of the case evidence. Any trivial piece of empirical nothing if it may concern the case, coursing through the mind of some drunken self-styled sleuth sitting in the back of a pub contemplating the pattern of little black pits in the cork of his bottle, is capable of provoking the wild shout ‘Eureka!’ Where do you think these famous empirical starting points came from--the Littlechild letter, the vesica pisces, the DNA on the hundred ’Ripper letters,’ the memories of Joseph Gorman Sickert, the Maybrick diary, and so on? Did anyone sit down first and ask reasonable questions concerning what case analysts OUGHT to be working on? Did anyone ask “What is the BEST way to study the Whitechapel murders?” Did anyone open the door to asking what Ripperologists should actively be looking for in the case evidence? These pre-critical starting points were unceremoniously pulled out of various “arses” by folks of no breeding with respect to a consciousness of their having any problem, hastily pressed into service and concluded on. The related pandemic of conflicting ‘solutions’ makes for a nice club life for those in our growing field, and here we are today.
Every Ripperologist is at least a de facto epistemologist, whether they know or care about the matter or not. Stephen Knight thought that the propositions Joseph Sickert gave him made a legitimate center and starting point for serious investigations, thus this body of information was his epistemological center. Based on what Sickert told him, Knight thought he knew, and what you think you know for sure and are willing to use as knowledge to develop further logical propositions is your epistemological center. Knight, however, didn’t ask enough good questions about what Sickert told him, thus everything he did afterward was biased and skewed by a false center, and is useless from a critical standpoint. The chief purpose of my work is to avoid this problem. Knowing that I need an epistemological center, I ask questions before I start deciding and proposing specifically on the case evidence, concerning what that center SHOULD be. If I’m going to have an epistemological center, why shouldn’t it be the BEST possible center, based on the case evidence and what purpose I have in thinking about it? Thus the real becomes ideal, we have a Kantian kind of a problem, in which we determine certain elements of our argument a priori, and then use that to order the rest a posteriori. No one has ever placed these elements properly in Ripperology before.
3. “Also, having an interest in the philosophy of science myself, I'm curious as to which branch of confirmation theory you feel you are conforming to with your current presentation?”
>>I don’t think of my work in terms of the philosophy of science, I never said I did, and your assumption that this is what I’m up to is entirely incorrect. I am an idealist, rationalist philosopher, not Carl Sagan. My theory is confirmed in that we can demonstrate a posteriori that our a priori starting point is correct.
So there you have it. The philosophical innovation is part Plotinus (the center), part Plato (asking questions, opening doors), part Kant (a priori, a posteriori), and part Hegel (logical opposition as the underlying principle of the universe.) Does it work? Read the Thesis. Every PhD thesis in philosophy tips its cap in certain directions.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
1.“…After all his endless crowing about having "solved" the case, I was truly hopeful he had made a breakthrough when I finally got to read his theory. Instead, there was only a sieve of speculation -- the sort of effort he would have torn apart gleefully.”
>>You don’t know how to evaluate the kind of work I do. All you know how to evaluate is fact-based work. In my view, you can dope out well enough for yourself if a Ripperologist does or doesn’t have enough data going at point A for him to be able to infer point B. But what I offer is an over-arching idea for all the case evidence, and it seems to me in your mind this is automatically and narrowly defined as “speculation.” It is not that I speculate—I follow the case evidence--it is that you are narrow in a disciplinary sense. And please don’t presuppose what I would or wouldn’t do! I think imagination is crucial to understanding the case, and would welcome the efforts of anyone exercising it logically and innovatively. Haven’t you read my praise of the work of Scott Nelson? Your post is typical of many who won’t bother to think through the positions taken, and who instead form an inadequate and political impression of my work. In the end it’s all sour grapes.
2. “Regardless, I stand behind what I said in my previous post. To debate the theory with David is wasted energy. Most new ideas or theories in any field are first reviewed by peers and there follows a lively critical exchange about the work. That has not ensued in this instance as even you might admit and almost wholly because David believes so devoutly in his theory.”
>>I do not “believe devoutly in my theory”—all I ask is that it be allowed to stand or fall by its own merits. The problem is, few are awake enough to it to realize what its merits are. There is nothing “lively” or even “critical” concerning the dreck that has been posted here by the likes of Norder and a few others, but how is that my fault? I can’t control what they do. Many of the posts of other people are pertinent, are appreciated by me, and will be considered in my further writings. I am repeatedly portrayed by half-a**ed “critics” as a believer, a subjectivist, etc.—this is nothing more than a misunderstanding of what I’m trying to do on the part of an unimaginative, limited, mechanical type of person. There are a lot of them in Ripperology it seems, I think because the field has become so fact-based. I believe they may become paranoid and defensive of their inadequacy when a theory like mine comes along, and this accounts for their misbehavior here. I am continually amazed at how these people confidently attribute all sorts of personal motivations, attitudes, and flaws to me personally, to someone they don’t personally know at all, and think this constitutes legitimate criticism of my work.
3.“When any inconsistencies are "explained" by David asserting the Ripper meant to do what David believes regardless of the facts then any serious discussion is impossible.”
>>My theory is 100% internally consistent, and it 100% follows and affirms the case evidence. Please show us specifically where it doesn’t, so that we may have a lively peer-level review discussion. Don’t just blather.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
1.“I have a question, not about the content of your theory, but rather I need a definition. You keep referring to the "epistemological centre". I've never come upon this particular phrase in philosophy. I've asked one of my friends in the philosophy department and he's never heard of anything being referred to as such, and felt it was a curious way to phrase things. We both, however, felt that it's quite possible that this is a phrase used by some particular author.”
>>The term may originate with me. I don’t recall it being used elsewhere, but it might have been. Please understand that you are coming at my work from the wrong direction entirely, if you want to properly evaluate and interpret it. What I mean to do in my work on the case is innovate logically. I think the case needs an innovator, because it has been sandbagged by decades of empiric fantasies. That means philosophical innovation, semantic innovation, innovation concerning the use of the syndrome of psychopathy, innovation concerning the value or meaning of the case evidence. You are not going to be able to determine if I am correct by “checking for previous uses of my thought forms,” as Mr. Norder simplistically attempts to do, because the reason I’m here is to evolve thought forms for the purpose to which I’ve set myself—solving the case. You need to know what I’m talking about in terms of the case evidence and related fields, then determine with your own senses whether my innovations are on the mark. This is not kid stuff—you can’t merely be some dink taking courses at state U to think you are necessarily catching the meaning. The sense of the solution of the case is in part an evolutionary step, and opposed to repeating and sinking back into decades of mediocrity. Think more in terms of an interpenetration of form and content.
Generally speaking, a center of epistemology, or something like it, would be found in philosophy when a single term is used to illuminate a wider field. Neoplatonists like Plotinus used it, and this is in the general sense what I am thinking of. In the case of the Whitechapel murders, psychopathy is the singular, central term. Don’t make this harder than it is.
2.“Anyway, such rambling aside, I would appreciate if you could provide a definition of "epistomolocial centre". I don't mean a listing of what you consider the "epis. centre of this particular case", but rather of the term in general. As it is fundamental to your approach, and as it is not a widely used terminology, it is important that you provide a definition so that those critiquing your theory may do so with a full understanding of your starting point. If you have coined the phrase yourself, then it is even more important that you provide a clear definition of what it is that you intend by such a term. Sorry for such a boaring request, but it would be most helpful and informative to everyone involved I suspect.”
>>We need to establish a critically determined starting point for Ripperology if we want to have a logical field of inquiry suitable for serious discussion. We pick up the gambit with the empiricists firmly in charge. Merely whores, they start anywhere, and remain unreflective on the effect their starting point has on the conduct of their examination of the case evidence. Any trivial piece of empirical nothing if it may concern the case, coursing through the mind of some drunken self-styled sleuth sitting in the back of a pub contemplating the pattern of little black pits in the cork of his bottle, is capable of provoking the wild shout ‘Eureka!’ Where do you think these famous empirical starting points came from--the Littlechild letter, the vesica pisces, the DNA on the hundred ’Ripper letters,’ the memories of Joseph Gorman Sickert, the Maybrick diary, and so on? Did anyone sit down first and ask reasonable questions concerning what case analysts OUGHT to be working on? Did anyone ask “What is the BEST way to study the Whitechapel murders?” Did anyone open the door to asking what Ripperologists should actively be looking for in the case evidence? These pre-critical starting points were unceremoniously pulled out of various “arses” by folks of no breeding with respect to a consciousness of their having any problem, hastily pressed into service and concluded on. The related pandemic of conflicting ‘solutions’ makes for a nice club life for those in our growing field, and here we are today.
Every Ripperologist is at least a de facto epistemologist, whether they know or care about the matter or not. Stephen Knight thought that the propositions Joseph Sickert gave him made a legitimate center and starting point for serious investigations, thus this body of information was his epistemological center. Based on what Sickert told him, Knight thought he knew, and what you think you know for sure and are willing to use as knowledge to develop further logical propositions is your epistemological center. Knight, however, didn’t ask enough good questions about what Sickert told him, thus everything he did afterward was biased and skewed by a false center, and is useless from a critical standpoint. The chief purpose of my work is to avoid this problem. Knowing that I need an epistemological center, I ask questions before I start deciding and proposing specifically on the case evidence, concerning what that center SHOULD be. If I’m going to have an epistemological center, why shouldn’t it be the BEST possible center, based on the case evidence and what purpose I have in thinking about it? Thus the real becomes ideal, we have a Kantian kind of a problem, in which we determine certain elements of our argument a priori, and then use that to order the rest a posteriori. No one has ever placed these elements properly in Ripperology before.
3. “Also, having an interest in the philosophy of science myself, I'm curious as to which branch of confirmation theory you feel you are conforming to with your current presentation?”
>>I don’t think of my work in terms of the philosophy of science, I never said I did, and your assumption that this is what I’m up to is entirely incorrect. I am an idealist, rationalist philosopher, not Carl Sagan. My theory is confirmed in that we can demonstrate a posteriori that our a priori starting point is correct.
So there you have it. The philosophical innovation is part Plotinus (the center), part Plato (asking questions, opening doors), part Kant (a priori, a posteriori.) Does it work? Read the Thesis. Most PhD theses in philosophy tip their caps in certain directions.
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
1.David, You are a joker aren't you! ha! I love your discussion of Evan's "flaw". I suppose you think it better that "once he found out that Tumblety was gay, he should have just stopped checking him out." David, the idea that simply being homosexual completely negates the possibility that Tumblety could have been the Ripper is so niave that it's laughable.”
>>I don’t think Mr. Evans “should have stopped checking him out” when he found out he was gay, but I do think he ought to recognize the idea that a gay man is very unlikely to mount a campaign of murder against women, attacking their sexual organs. Through our empirical studies of sexual serial murders, we discover a causal link between the sexual impulse and the impulse to murder. Since JtR attacked the sexual organs of women only, it is empirically overridingly likely that he was perversely attracted to those sexual organs, and therefore that he was heterosexual. The position that Tumblety was JtR therefore is subjective in nature; we believe it because we want to, not because it is supported by the facts. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are people in this world who are so odd that they might go ahead and do what JtR did even being gay, and some of them may be psychopaths. But you have at some point to develop respect for the dimension or inflection of serious discussion. These people are so extraordinarily rare that to assume Tumblety was one of them starts out your theorizing in a black hole of unlikelihood, or at least a brown one. The possibility is not a fit subject for serious discussion unless some strong, believable, additional evidence can be presented to bridge the gap. If Littlechild had said in his letter to Sims that Tumblety had been arrested on the night of the double event with a uterus in his pocket, or if one of the witnesses had marveled at the great height of a man he’d seen near a murder scene, I’d come right out of my shoes to discuss Tumblety seriously. I’d be the first person in line for such a discussion—I’d even be ahead of Mr. Evans. But absent such evidence, I just can’t entertain a serious discussion, and I don’t think anyone else could, either.
2. “I don't think Tumblety is the Ripper, but that's not the point. In order to come to that conclusion we need as much information about the suspect as possible. And that is where Evan's has done an amazing job.”
>>What I think of as research in the case of the Whitechapel murders is connected to these murders in a way I can clearly understand. I think of crime scene evidence, witness sightings, MEPO reports, inquest minutes, the recent history of the Jewish people in Eastern Europe in light of the double event, census records, a way to link these items together, that sort of thing. How much of this applies to Tumblety as a candidate, really? The case for him is much more based on matters unrelated to the murders, such as his flight to France, his pursuit in America by the Met, his letters, and so on. It is empirical information about the suspect, true. But unless the suspect can be connected to the case evidence, it is not empirical information about the case evidence. Therefore my respectful question as to whether all the research on Tumblety was perhaps not a necessary trip.
3. “You, on the other hand, can't even demonstrate where Aaron lived at the time and have all but said you don't care.”
>>Do you mean that since I can’t prove where Aaron lived during the Terror I can’t say that he was in Whitechapel to irk his relative? In other words, maybe Aaron was living in up in Dublin at the time? Hey, if we had perfect information, we wouldn’t need theories, serious discussions, or really any intellect at all. You are right, where he was is one of the things we can’t see. The question is whether or not our discussion about what we can see is adequate to explain the areas we can’t see. Note: We know Aaron immigrated to London with his sisters in the early 1880s.
4. “You're theory is built upon assumptions about contractions of words you cannot demonstrate were in use when there is evidence to suggest they are recent (where's your connection to the evidence now?), fundamental misunderstandings of the psychological conditions you are assumming the killer had, and a complicated series of motives that are unparalleled in the history of serial lust murders. If you think that Tumblety being homosexual rules him out because most killers murder the gender of their affection, then by that line of reasoning you must dismiss your own proposal as laughable because no other serial mutilator has ever acted with the complex motive you propose.”
>>(a) I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that the contraction “Juwe” is recent, but if it is, fine. My theory loses nothing. (b) I get my idea of his psychological condition FROM THE EVIDENCE; I do not simply ASSUME it. The behavior of the Whitechapel murderer is a better fit for psychopathy than any other psychiatric condition, as I have shared on these boards. (c) I think the murderer had extremely simple and inadequate motives, that he was just throwing himself away throughout the whole thing. He picks up his pseudomotivations externally, like a sticky rubber ball picks up debris as it rolls through a house, and thus we can determine what they were by the objective, external case evidence. All he’s doing is reacting almost the way a fly sitting on your kitchen table springs into flight the instant you move your hand toward it—because he’s simplistic in terms of his character, we can know what he was up to through the immediate evidence of the case. Why do we have to consider motive as merely that of a “serial mutilator,” as you say? If he were a psychopath, wouldn’t he have the motives of one?
Copyright David M. Radka, 2004.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 12:21 pm: | |
1.“David, In your haste to correct other people you apparently overlook critical information. Jugdenwerk means "youth work". Judgdenwerk does not, by itself, contain any Christian reference.”
>>So what? The Christians use it, don’t they? Doesn’t usage connote anything to you? In 1936 the American Republican party, not liking President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal liberalism, produced posters and bumper stickers simply worded “Mother Goose-velt.” Now, there is nothing in this term to indicate any connection to either the Republican Party or its candidates for office, but the meaning was obvious to all who beheld it—they knew they were being urged to vote Republican. Same thing with “Jugendwerk” and its contraction “Juwe.” In the proper context, e.g., after Duke Street, after the mutilations to Eddowes’ face, after the purloined apron half, etc., the discrete meaning is intelligible.
2.You found the word on a Christian youth organisation's web-site, but that doesn't mean Jugdenwerk by itself has this connotation. Let's try it this way. The English phrase "Youth work" is "religously neutral". But, if I looked up a Christian web site and found that this organisation used the phrase "Christian youth work", it would be unreasonable for me to argue that the phrase "youth work" used elsewhere contains Christian overtones.
>>That the word itself contains Christian overtones is not my position. That the word chalked on the Wentworth Model Dwellings after the double event does is.
3.“Moreover, as Dan has pointed out, the term Jugdenwerk was not used in 1888, and so your arguement that Juwes is a contraction for a word that did not exist at the time is flawed.”
>>Mr. Norder really ought to take up an investigation called “epistemology,” the study of how we know what we know. If he did, he wouldn’t make so many mistakes. His position is that because the German Mennonites didn’t start using Juwe until the early 1960s, therefore NOBODY else did either. I don’t believe Mr. Norder knows this—I believe he merely thinks it. Now, if it can be shown that the term Juwe with a Christian use really wasn’t in effect in 1888, fine. But that wouldn’t change my interpretation of the case evidence taken as a whole.
4.“You can claim all you want that Juwes is a contraction for Jugdenwerk as many times as you like. But that doesn't change the fact that Jugdenwerk is not a religously loaded word, or the fact that the word does not appear to be used in 1888. So, even if you are able to find Jugdenwerk in use in 1888, you still have the problem that it is not a religiously loaded word.”
>>(yawn) Got a lot of problems, don’t I? Better get to work.
5.“Now, read this carefully. Because Jugdenwork is not a religiously loaded word, your assumption that the graffito has religious connotations to it because of the use of Juwes is a flawed assumption. That means your explanation of the graffito is flawed. It's wrong. And therefore, all the parts of your theory that are built upon your interpretation of the graffito, and that depend upon your interpretation of the graffito, are also flawed.”
>>Not a chance, Mr. Hamm. The graffitus still says what it says, appeared when it did, had the half-apron under it, the three Jews still walked down Duke Street, and the Jewish street market still opened up a few hours later.
6.“The benefit of posting ideas is not the compliments we occasionally recieve if people like what we have to say. The benefit is that when we make mistakes, people can point them out to us. That way, we don't waste time thinking about false, or incorrect, ideas.”
>>Agreed! I enjoy teaching all my friends here.
7.“By the way, I'm still looking for your definition of "epistomological centre". My search in the philosophy date base scored no hits. Is this an example of your own jargon? If so, a definition is required. If you didn't just make it up, a definition is still required because it is a very obscure phrase in philosophy. One that my friend in the philosophy dept. has never heard of, and one that does not get used in any of the published scholarly works contained in the philosophy data base.”
Charming. I certainly am an innovator, aren’t I? Please see my post on this, apparently it hasn’t moved out of the queue yet.
Copyright David M. radka, 2004. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 8:57 pm: | |
Dear RJ,
I seem to have lost David's plot someway back with his annonymous "proxy" killer, though I thought it an interesting concept in itself. The unnamed killer becomes a 'known' through the "epistemological center" comprising the "case evidence" and "psycho-pathology reference". I would like to widen this model to include that condition known as "autism".
Having spent many years in the company of people labelled/diagnosed as schizophrenic, psychopathic, I have also had the opportunity to know a man in his late 20's who had the unfortunate experience whilst being born to have been starved of oxygen resulting in some degree of "autism".As a person you pass in the street he is quite unremarkable, but as a personality he is quite remarkable having an extraordinary gift/talent...memory, mimicry, numerical calculations. His day to day life consists of what I can only describe as numerous 'ritualised' happenings...driving, sheparding, dressing, etc.
He rarely speaks unless he is spoken to, then he moreoften than not replies in monosyllables...though he is very acute at watching people's body-language (which can be worth more than words!).
Anyway, regarding the so-called personality testing of known psychopaths...curiously, he matches some of those traits, if not ALL!
I was thinking that, to the person he trusts (in this case his mother)he is potentially a weapon of mass destruction...and the least suspect!
Do we exlude the "autistic" suspect from the "epistemological center", vis., "criminal- psychopathology"?
Rosey :-) |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
Jennifer,
I did not read your profile. I will shortly.
You previously mentioned that you were in the process of taking exams; I simply wondered if you were a college student. You curtly replied that, "My education is none of your concern!". Exclamation points do have a function you know. You then clarified matters even less by adding, "However I think you will find I am an undergraduate and not a college student".
Undergraduate students, at least in the U.S.–are students who have not yet completed their initial college education, i.e., graduated–as opposed to post-grads, i.e., those who are attending graduate school.
In your next observation you implied that I was a dim witted imbecile who didn't know what he was talking about, "Oh God, now you are mentioning mr Radcliffe Brown!!!!! What are you thinking!!!!!!". Here's what I was thinking, if you were going to be abrupt and insulting, then I was going to return your effort with interest. That's fair, no? Judging from the tone of your last message, I must not have gotten that idea across to you.
Jennifer, exclamation points give emphasis to our written ideas. When you overload the end of a sentence like, "what are you thinking" with multiple emphases, you imply that that person you are addressing is, among other things, a massive idiot. The "Oh God" only serves to underscore your meaning. That's like me being purposely condescending, and telling you that I learned those things while I was at little boy school!!!!!!!
Be that as it may, let's turn to the academic portion of your message. Emile Durkheim wasn't a pure functionalist per se, that was Malinowski's gestalt. Durkheim, was a Structuralist who used functionalism to explain social cohesion. Alfred Radcliffe-Brown was also a Structuralist, he, however, was more interested in how social structures functioned in terms of cultural change. Radcliffe-Brown studied change by synthesizing two theoretical paradigms, which give anthropology the British school of structural-functionalism. I'm thoroughly familiar with anthropological theory. Last semester, I began my tenure as the department T.A.. In that capacity, I had the honor and the privilege, to lecture the subject to college freshmen and sophomores, when the professor didn't show up, or was too busy with his research to do it himself.
You continue to express a lingering skepticism regarding the appropriateness of my using anthropological concepts, in my arguments. You wrote: "Secondly - I have read all your posts to my detriment. Do not kid yourself I am fully aware of what you are saying to me before i answer. However, I do not see what structural or any other kind of functional.sim has to do with Mr Radka's (hello David)theory about psychopathic Jews".
You're correct Jennifer, " structural or any other kind of functional.sim" have nothing "to do with Mr Radka's (hello David)theory about psychopathic Jews". They are , however, pertinent to my discussions with Mr. Souden, "It's a big freakin' world out there Moe, and the way you're describing it, indicates that you've got a handle on the [social structures and cultural institutions] of every human organization on the planet (Durkheim 1947)", and with R.J. Palmer, This statement summarizes the construction of the summary. Radka went out of his way, it seems, to tell his readers' what they're looking at, i.e., a framework for a sequence of related actions and conditions. The framework includes his account of these actions and conditions, based on his analysis of the events in the historical record. He clearly states that what he plans to tell his readers is why the events happened the way they did. And this is a crucial point, because an explanation of why, is not an explanation of how; why something happens is relativism (Boas 1947); how it happens is structural-functionalism (Radcliffe-Brown 1952). It follows then, that the criterion guiding the analysis of Radka's model must be: Are his explanations of why, plausible? But is this complete? Is it knowable?", which is why I suggested that you go back to where you read those quotes, and reread them in context. Please note: My quotes contain sufficient material to contextualize their meaning, which is why I will continue to quote you, and others.
As you might already know, Jennifer, the social sciences study the human condition. Theories which model those phenomena, can be applied to where ever they might help explain causality, or underlying themes. I chose to use those ideas, because the context of the arguments qualified their suitability. In the first quote to Mr. Souden, I suggested that, because the world is populated by so many different cultures and social structures, that the broadness of his statement wasn't feasible. I cannot use Durkheim's concept without acknowledging where I got it from, that's plagiarism. I developed good citation habits (I think) as an undergrad, many years ago. Right now, I'm doing a lot of academic writing, so citation is kinda second nature to me.
In the second quote to RJ, I am trying to make two different points using the same frame of reference:
1 Semantically distinguish between two very
different ways of knowing.
a Relativism- Franz Boas explained why
cultural development, is influenced by
immediate local conditions. Cultural change
is not universal, it's relative.
b Structural-functionalism- Radcliffe-Brown's
synthesis explained how cultural change
functioned.
You may recall from you studies that they were competing schools of thought, i.e., some ethnographers didn't what to study why cultures change, they wanted, instead, to study how cultures change.
2 Rhetorically-Radka explains why the
murders were committed. He argues that the
reasons (motives) people commit murder are
relative to their circumstance. He is not
arguing how the murderer committed the
crimes, i.e., his function.
Although he does go into detail on the structure of the murders, i.e., what they looked like, his argument remains grounded in the context of why.
I didn't think that it was fair for some people to criticize Radka for not explaining how his theory worked relative to this psychologist's theory, or that contrived diagnostic manual. Radka didn't try to explain how, he did explain why. As I said before, how is not why.
I've been arguing with RJ for I forgot how many years, so he knows my New York style of discourse ;-), and judging by the contents of Mr. Souden's messages here, and on other boards, I believed that he would understand my reference straight away. Whisper(Actually I enjoy arguing with RJ, because he's quick on the in-take, and quicker on the out-put, and he knows exactly where I'm comin' from, but DON'T tell him I said that).
As to your suggestion re: further discussion of the social sciences; I'm sure that I would enjoy discussing any of those subjects with you. If you would like to follow up on that, please let me know. Oh, by the way, psychology is so closely related to sociology and anthropology, i.e., when they run, it sweats.
Sincerely
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
“Mr. Radka wrote of the term ’Juwe’: Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't get any hits back as far as 1888. But that doesn't mean the contraction was not in use then in spoken language somewhere in Germany.
Ms Long replied: You are basically saying that, because there is no evidence that it wasn't in use must mean it was. I'm sorry but the lack of something surely must mean it just didn't exist at the time. There were no computers in 1888 but I could just as easily say, "obviously, because it doesn't mention the lack of computers during 1888 they must have existed".
>>Mr. Radka’s rebuttal: No, I’m NOT saying that. I’m saying that the term is a legitimate contraction of the German language, and it may have been in use for many years. How many years do you think English contractions like “can’t” and “won’t” have been around? For quite a long time, I’d think. When Christian Jaud, Benji Wiebe and Thomas Schachner were fooling around with this, all they came up with was that the Mennonites didn’t start using it for their youth programs in Germany until the early 1960s. That’s it. Finis. No more information. Nobody has yet shown where the contraction originated.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 5:30 am: | |
Hi Caz,
Thank you for your kind words. They mean a lot to me.
Unfortunately, I don't have your e-mail address anymore. My sons somehow managed to fry my computer while I was away, but I think you will be hearing from a mutual friend of ours very soon, who will supply you with some information and a request. I look forward to talking with you again.
Until then.
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
“Psycho-babble, German grammar??? Isn't it amazing how these specious arguments for the identity of the Ripper always degenerate into debates and squabbles about irrelevant side-issues and off-topic subjects. The diary is another prime example. Oh well, back to the drawing board.”
>>If you don’t know, you really ought to ask questions. Otherwise, how can you learn? I’m here to teach. Do you have any questions you’d like to ask me about my theory, Mr. Longman? All you’ve done so far is squabble about irrelevant side-issues and off-topic subjects, such as your speciously alleged proof that Levy couldn’t have lied.
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Many, many words and posts above, David Radka actually wrote these eight syllables:
"Don’t make this harder than it is."
I'm quoting them here in case any of you missed them. Reading them was the best part of my day.
All the best,
--John (who wants to be just like David, "part Plotinus (the center), part Plato (asking questions, opening doors), part Kant (a priori, a posteriori), and part Hegel (logical opposition as the underlying principle of the universe.)" |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 148
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 12:45 am: | |
This is so tedious.
David wrote:
"Please note Mr. Norder has never “detailed” ANYTHING on this thread."
I've detailed plenty of things on this thread, you've apparently just chosen to ignore them.
As one of several examples, you falsely claimed that psychopaths are incapable of feeling anger. I responded with the important detail that unrestrained and explosive anger is a classic symptom of psychopathy, which is completely opposite of your belief on the matter. I then backed it up with a reference to the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic criteria and also with Dr. Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist, which very specifically states that "inadequate control of anger and temper" is a strongly correlated trait.
At this point both the person who is considered the world's foremost authority on psychopathy and the premier organization for mental health professionals (which is in charge of writing the standard diagnostic reference manual used by virtually all psychotherapists) both say that you are completely wrong -- on this point and several others already detailed on this board.
It takes a lot of chutzpah for you to come along and claim that I haven't provided any details to support my side when your idea of supporting your side is to talk about dead philosophers.
"By the way, old bean, where’s my copy of the latest ‘Ripper Notes?’ Haven’t received it yet, and its already mid-June."
Ripper Notes is a quarterly magazine, and the last issue came out in April. Further, it should have included a letter explicitly saying that I'd be taking over for the July issue. It's now mid-June and you want to know why you haven't received it yet?
How detailed of an answer would you like?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 7:13 am: | |
Dear Mephisito
Any insult which you took from my post was not intended. I am very sorry if you took it as such. I was merely trying to be light hearted. I do hope you take no lasting offense.
Once again my apologies.
Seriously I must get off this thread now.
Regards
Jennifer |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
1.“…None of us expect David to answer our posts - at best he replies to them (there is a subtle but big difference). BUT is anyone going to accept the challenge to produce a comprehensive rebuttal of the theory in its entirety and in dissertation format? A rebuttal in the message boards won't actually be read by the newcomer but they may wander into a dissertation responding to the theory.”
>>I’d LOVE to see something like this! This is what I’ve been trying to get Norder and his little buddies to do for the past two months—to write a specific, detailed text in criticism of my work. They don’t get specific, because they don’t have any ammunition to shoot. Let them try to show that Juwe or the tailoring symbols are central to my theory. Let them try to show that I don’t know what a psychopath is. NOTHING would please me more! You’ve got the shoe on backwards, Ian. I reply to you folks, you DON’T reply to me!
2. “Go back, read the original summary and post it's good and bad points, break it up into fact fiction, rumour, speculation, imagination, likely, unlikely, possible, whatever... just post your arguments don't expect David to answer them, just post 'em.”
>>OH BOY WILL I ANSWER THEM! OH BOY!! OH BOY!!
3. “The language of the summary is, as Glenn once pointed out, very academic and high falluting and possibly leads a newcomer to be persuaded by the language without realising it's presented as such to hide the lack of substance (in my opinion) and to blur the lines betwen fact and fiction.”
>>The language of the Summary is the minimum I deemed necessary to be able to present essential matters adequately and with precision. You folks narrowly consider substance to be limited to quantity. I solved the case by incorporating quality as well.
4. “As a relative newcomer myself, even I find a lot of what the theory stands for as pure bunkum with holes big enough to drive a herd of elephants through, yet, since Steven has added it to the web site, critics need a formal response and not pick off points one by one on the message boards which no-one will see in 3 months time. Anyone up to the challenge? I suspect Dan may take up the challenge for Ripper Notes but I think I detect a recent weakening of Dan's resolve and he may end up supporting and defending the theory rather than challenging it :-)”
>>There’s none weaker.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
1.“I just want to state that Ian's (signature "hemustadoneit") two latest posts are spot on and very well put indeed. If I may quote:
"If it wasn't panic, then why the need to leave any message which hadn't been planned before - he seems to be a fastidious planner? (tailoring marks, longitudinal disection, correct places to be seen by Jews, earlier manipiulating Stride to stand there while he stands at the end of the street waiting for a passing Jew...)
If the message were specifically planned, he'd either a) have chalk readily available b) chalk the message right next to the body c) have written the message prior to the murder and leave it on the victim (BOTH victims of that evening) d) have used language with a polish slant to help implicate Aaron e) write a note later and send it with the half-a-apron f) shout Lipski at the second event g) etc etc etc...
A phsycopath _doesn't_ panic we're told. He has _no_ emotions or feelings, he's not afraid... so why, when he's spotted, must he suddenly panic and need to reinforce his message to Levy and spend 40 minutes searching for chalk?
He has signs of being a planner but strangely when his plan works and he is spotted he panics?"
I think these excellent points by Ian exemplifies in the best possible way what I wanted to say when I referred to Radka's psychopathic character as contradictory and constructed. Radka accuses everyone here -- except Natalie -- for being ignorant on the subject, although he himself only refers to (and uncritically quotes) one single source to back up his theories, namely Cleckley.”
>>You are full of prunes, Mr. Andersson. I reference Cleckley, Hare and Lykken in the Summary, and have more psychiatrists available for the Thesis. There is NOTHING “uncritical” about what I do. Give us some examples of my “uncritical” quotations, please. Elaborate; show us what you’ve got. I’ve answered all the points your hero made in a recent post, and shown him to be a goat.
2. “Like Dan and Jeff has pointed out, there are other references regarding psychopathy to consider that are equally important, if not more, as Cleckley. However, Radka chooses to disregard those completely, since they don't fit his fairy-tales and whopping fibs. Well, that's Radka's source criticism for you... very convenient indeed. Fitting facts into theory.”
>>Cleckley is one of several psychiatrists I read for the case. The reason I am criticized for using Cleckley at all is because someone noticed that he started writing about psychopaths in the 1950s, and others jumped on that bandwagon. It was a cheap way to come up with something to throw at me, but by now it looks more like a limp dishrag than a criticism, I’d think. The latest edition of his main book was released in 1988. Fairy-tales and whopping fibs, eh? Show me ONE thing that I say about the case is contrary to or unjustified by the evidence. Show me right now.
3. “I am not sure if anyone's up for the challenge, though, Ian. Most of us have left this particular battle field, me included. But I agree that opposing longer dissertations concerning the same subject is a fruitful idea; we can see that from the dissertation section on this website concerning Kosminski, for example.
But I assume most of us here has better things to do with our time than dissecting Radka's theory in such an elaborate manner -- at least until he goes public with his whole thesis (if such a piece really exists, that is). So far I think Jeff, Dan, Donald and not least Mr Longman (among others) have done excellent jobs on trying to analyse and criticize Radka's methodology and summary to a very a serious and large extent. I believe we may have to be satisfied with that.
>>I can’t wait for these long dissertations. I’m a better critic than a writer. People interested in doing this ought to watch out, however. It has proven difficult for some to understand what all my positions are from the Summary. This may result in an incorrect portrayal of my position in your criticism, which I’ll point out.
Also watch out for taking anything I say anywhere out of context, which Mr. Norder does egregiously. With respect to the illustrious crew you cite above, I’ve made goats out of all of them here, and am ever happy to do so again.
4. "But we are dealing with a phsycopath, so I suppose anything is possible... (sigh, literally it seems anything we want to make up will fit JtR whether it make sense or not)." Spot on again, Ian. I couldn't agree more.
Now, back to the drawing board and the world of intellectual sanity. May this thread rest in peace as far as I am concerned.”
>>Go ahead and start making up things about psychopaths all you want. Remember I’m here, though, and that I know that field.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 12:46 am: | |
Hi RJ,
I found your post of June 18, 2004, 4:46 pm, to be a very interesting, and concise statement of your perspective of Radka's summary. Don't get me wrong, it's not that the other messages you've addressed to me weren't equally as clear or poignant, it's just that this one contains a body of thought that speaks to many of the issues I had anticipated raising.
I'm going to post this in two parts becase it is verrry long. So, make yourself a pitcher of Martinis (You might need it), and a platter of hors d'oeuvres and kick back for a while.
(1) You wrote:
"'Today's theories are tomorrows research projects,' you write, and go to some considerable trouble to argue that Radka's logic is both 'valid', and that his method is along strictly classical and scientific lines. But this, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand".
I think it does RJ, I go to such lengths, because I believe that mostly, Radka's summary is being held to a double standard. How can we possibly get a clear picture of his arguments, if we can't reason with his logic, or show why we think he is mistaken.
Isn't a wholesale rejection of Radka's conclusion without explanation the same thing as a counter-endorsement, e.g., I don't drink Pepsi, and neither should you. That doesn't tell us much, but if that critic had included some information: The Surgeon General reported that he used Pepsi-Cola to remove rust from the president's spittoon, well now, that's telling me something. The same concept holds if one wishes to dispute an individual argument in the summary by proposing a more likely alternative hypothesis. In this scenario, he or she should have to support his or her claims with evidence, i.e., why Radka is wrong, otherwise, it's just a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I also felt that a number of his critics were asking Radka to account for something he wasn't arguing, i.e., the absolute certainty of his claims. He isn't claiming absolute certainty for every individual issue. What he is claiming, however, is that the probability of each premise, when taken together (holistically), make it likely that the scenario he described, happened the way he described it. Wouldn't you agree that it is pointless to demand deductive certainty from inductive probability? If the object of the critical review being conducted here, is to accurately discover the worth of Radka's summary, then shouldn't the critics ask questions that can reveal the extent of that value? If the review of Radka's summary is to have any meaning, then shouldn't the analysis have a point? If not, then all the critics are doing here, is insulting our collective intelligence, and if I want to be insulted, I'll call my ex-wife.
(2) You wrote: "Mr. Radka is not stating that he has a theory. He is stating, even in his title, that it is a manifestation of the 'case solution'".
Radka's pre-amble states:
"The Summary is a full and concise statement of the logical argument manifesting the case solution. The thesis provides a common language setting for the argument. Summary of the thesis, [is] in question and answer format." (emphasis added).
The pre-amble leads me to understand the following: 1) The theory describes the solution. 2) The Summary is a brief demonstration of the theory. 3) The thesis will use simple language to explain the key points of the solution in greater detail. There isn't anything in the original text that stimulates my mind to perceive images of brilliance or mass, critically created or otherwise. He doesn't explicitly mention anything about empirical support or truth, nor can anything he does mention be construed to mean that he implies those concepts. To me, it just isn't there.
If you claim that I don't take him seriously, and that you "on the otherhand, take him to mean what he says", then you misinterpret my raison d'être. When I read that paper, I wasn't reading Radka; I was reading a summary of a theory about The Whitechapel Murders. I analyzed the paper to learn: what information it contained; how the information was gathered; the order in which the information was arranged, blah, blah, blah. I didn't begin my analysis by determining the reliability of the information based on who wrote the paper. I couldn't determine the reliability of the data until after I had identified it. Whether or not I take him seriously is irrelevant, because the author is not part of the information.
My criticism is concerned solely with how Radka's summary is being criticized. I have, in my very first post, tried to make it clear that the criteria, which was being used to determine the worth of Radka's summary, was misguided and counter productive, i.e., it was demanding something from the summary that the summary wasn't claiming; it was asking the summary to be something other than what it was; it refused to deal with the summary on its own terms. This thread has the potential to actually contribute something worthwhile to the world of Ripperology, and that is to analyze a new assessment of the case, in a meaningful way. Why is that valuable? Because it shows a serious attitude and a level of maturity that authors and theorists, other than those who regularly attend these boards, might find that attractive enough to premire, outline, or simply discuss their work. How does that benefit the Casebook Jacks? It broadens our perspective on the case, and it may provide significant insight; who knows, one small piece of information may be all that's necessary to produce another Caroline Anne Morris, i.e., a home grown author. The purpose of our criticism should be: 1) to evaluate an authors work as a whole; 2) identify the ideas that can explain particular events; 3) identify the ideas that can be expanded by further research. Who authored the material being reviewed is irrelevant.
(3)You wrote: "Holism=solution. Mr. Radka is insisting that the case is NOT solved when he provides empirical documentation that Levy was in Hove (for instance); the case is solved when the parts dancing around the center reaches the desired critical mass and is transmuted from base lead into the 'golden orb' --(a metaphor of Mr. Radka's that you might not be familiar with).
'We become able to determine what elements are related, and what unrelated, by their logical relation to the center. The case reaches solution as predication of all the evidence under psychopathy attains an adequate, critically appraisable holism'. ' Note that: Holism is the solution".
I don't understand Radka's notion of holism to mean solution (holism=solution), in the same way you do. Rather, I see him using the term to describe two different perspectives:
1) Why the epistemological center is essential to understanding the solution:
The title of Paragraph 1 of the summary states: "What is The Epistemological Center of the Case?:". Radka has consistently claimed that his theory was engendered by the epistemological center. He identifies the E.C. in Paragraph 1, item 1 as: "It is that whoever he might have been, the Whitechapel murderer was a psychopath", therefore, E.C. (psychopath) = theory. Next, he talks like he has a mouse in his pocket when he explains the connection between his idea of psychopath, and the events in the historical record: "We give ourselves a chance to solve the case by positing, for the first time in Ripperology, what we should be looking for in the case evidence. We become able to determine what elements are related, and what [are] unrelated, by their logical relation to the center". Holism is Radka's rubric for how the solution coalesced: EC = (psychopath), (ECpsychopath) + historical record = solution, therefore, the psychopathy of the killer is a necessary condition of the historical record.
2) The solution should be viewed as a macrocosm, and not as the sum of its parts.
Simply stated: Any individual proposition of the summary when taken out of psychopathic context, cannot be instantiated. The logic of the summary works as a whole, i.e., it is holistic.
Let p = psychopathy, q = the solution.
If p, then q.
p
therefore q
Nice huh? This niceity takes on significant meaning later in my argument.
END OF PART I
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
PART II
TWO QUESTIONS FROM RJ, AND SOME OTHER OBSERVATIONS:
(4) You wrote: "Some questions I would ask: 1. How precisely do we "critically appraise" Mr. Radka's 'holism'? Sounds like a bit of a problem. Do we merely judge it (as you are largely doing) by it's internal consistancy and it's competence in logic, or do you demand external (ie., empircal) confirmation? Would not the former only prove that it is logically 'valid' (in Prof. Omlor's sense) but not 'true'? I reckon I'm condemning Radka to the asylum for the theoretically insistant. ("A page of history is worth a volume of logic", Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said). Do you and I really even have an argument?".
Kickin' question there RJ. I don't think it's a matter of either or, i.e., internal consistency or external validity, I think it's a matter of sequence, first internal consistency, and then external validity. 1) Once we've established that the structure and direction of the summary is: a deductive theory (Top down), which starts with a generalization, and concludes with specific instances, then 2) we can begin to analyze its components, which are inductive hypotheses, and 3) assess their individual truth value in terms of plausibility. We can do this one of two ways: a) categorically-strong, medium, or weak; or b) numerically-as a ratio that falls somewhere between true and false. 4) Once we've completed that evaluation, we are prepared to look at it as a whole, i.e., how plausible are its premises, is there a 2/3 majority of plausible premises. How does accepting the theory help us? How might it hurt us? How can we improve it? We take our findings to another peer review to see if our analysis is replicable.
(5) You wrote: "2. Sorry to be repetitive, but could you please translate the following in lieu of my above comments? 'We become able to determine what elements are related, and what unrelated, by their logical relation to the center.' This is still baffling. We can 'determine' which elements are related by their relation to the 'center'. But how do we know what that is? When it has 'obtained' 'holism.'".
OK Bwana, I translate. Redheaded one say, element that know EC, sleep in hut with solution, element not know EC, we eat. };-)
I think at some point the Redheaded one does indeed commit something like empirical sin. I imagine Immanuel Kant sitting on Radka's left shoulder like a dark angel urging the rationalist to cite *Cleckley, Hare, and Lykken et. al. (I believe other references will appear in his thesis). I'm sure you remember that Kant endeavored to synthesize rationalism with empiricism, because he saw a number of points where their paths crossed. Radka, however, was able to resist the evils of Kant's synthesis, he chose instead to use positivism to rationalize Cleckley, Hare, and Lykken's research, into a likely train of thought to explain his perception of the link between the murderer and the events in the historical record. Radka's summary attempts to explain the aspects of the case that he feels are beneficial to his solution. He uses a synthesis of rationalism and positivism as his explanatory template.
One of the reasons I appreciate the form of Radka's model, is that it's grounded in science. My interest and training in anthropology is from an archaeological perspective, both of these disciplines rely heavily on the scientific method as a matter of course. Archaeologists conduct material experiments to test their hypotheses as they work their way toward the resolution of their research question. In order for their work to have any meaning and contribute to the existing knowledge base, it must pass a rigorous peer review, i.e., other scientists must be able to replicate their experiments, in order to confirm their conclusions.
Archaeologists and anthropologist build their inquiries around a theoretical paradigm, because it gives their research direction and helps justify their findings. If, for example I'm interested in explaining how Lapis Lazuli from Afghanistan came to be found among the artifacts in a 7000-year-old burial pit in Eastern Anatolia, then I'm obliged to research the question from the functionalist perspective of cultural diffusion. Relativism would hardly be appropriate to the effort, because Lapis Lazuli isn't native to Anatolia. All I have to go on (My evidence) is the fact that a chemical analysis has matched the cobalt signatures of the Anatolian samples, with known Afghani samples. How the Lapis Lazuli made its way to Anatolia in 5000 B.C. is my problem. Now, I have to use rationalist concepts to synthesize a theoretical model that could explain the Afghan/Anatolia conundrum.
This part of the process is restricted to synthesizing the information I've uncovered; the trade route information in the knowledge base; the findings of previous expeditions, and understanding how they are connected to the events in the historical record.
As I see it, Radka had similar problems to overcome while he formulated his solution. His biggest problem is that his evidence, is the historical record. This is an 116-year-old case; any adult who was connected with these events is long dead, so he won't be firming-up any of their evidence any time soon. Thus Radka's research design consists of: 1) a hermeneutic investigation of the historical record to identify patterns, and benchmark events; 2)and rationalizing the correlations between the dependent variables and the independent variables. He used the scientific method to generalize a theory, i.e., the epistemological center thingy, which he based on the pattern of psychological causality he saw weaving its way through the historical benchmarks; he formed working hypotheses to test his theory; researched the field of psychology that relates to his model; made observations, and confirmed his theory. That my brother, is the essence of the scientific method, which is why I gave his theoretical structure such high marks.
This brings me to the last argument of this message (yeah): I believe that the content of Radka's theory has not been seriouly challenged by the the counter-evidence that Dan Norder has introduced.
Norder, claims that Radka's psychological observations fail because they do not agree with the DSM, a symptom/diagnostic manual published by APA.
The DSM is the primary source document used by the congress and other federal agencies to analyze funding levels related to mental health issues. It is also the source data base used in the insurance industries to up-date the actuarial tables they rely on to calculate their policy holder's premiums, and the payment scales for health care providers.
When Norder first described the DSM in his post (#87) of May, 13, 2004, 9:24 am, I became a little curious, I couldn't understand why psychologists and psychiatrists would use something that held so much potential risk, like a manual to diagnose the symptoms of living patients? I decided to look into the DSM.
I didn't have a lot of time to devote to this investigation, I wanted to get as much data, from as diversified a sample as I possibily could. My sampling frame was a simple random sample of telephone numbers. Ten phonebooks were assembled by a second individual, the phone numbers were selected by a third party. The sampling frame was discarded after each survey was completed. The sampling frame contained no names (Blind).
I conducted 16 interviews, in both face to face and telephone interviews. The sampling frame was composed of practicing psychologists and psychiatrists. I assured the respondents that identification data would be destroyed immediately after the interview, and that they would remain anonymous. The questions solicited cultural domain information, and opinion conclusion data. Data was rounded to the nearest whole number.
The respondents frame of reference was consistent across the sampling frame, i.e., their answers were based on their experience in private practice and/or in clinical studies.
The general consensus among the respondents is that the DSM is unreliable as a general diagnostic guideline, and is virtually useless as a predictive tool. 92% of the sample believe that the DSM does not adaquately account for causal diversity among patients, 98% thought that it couldn't account for the variation in symptoms for patients diagnosed for the same condition through other means.
The respondents were asked to evaluate the inclusiveness of DSM diagnostic categories.
100% thought that for every patient with symptoms corresponding to a DSM classification, there are literally tens of thousands that deviate to some small degree. 95% thought that the manual didn't compensate for this discrepancy, 80% believed that these cases had been re-classified without adequate explanation.
90% of the subjects responded negatively when asked how a diagnosis is classified. The respondents viewed the DSM as a list of "ballpark" diagnoses, which may or may not apply to patients who have the same symptoms or causal conditions.
95% indicated that assigning symptoms to DSM categories is more often than not, a matter of internal APA politics, then it is a medical decision. One respondents quoted an "insider" collegue as saying that "symptoms are normally assigned diagnostic classification by a voice vote among the board members, i.e., science by decree. Another respondent recalled that "during the 1980s, the APA voted to re-issue DSMIII". They were moved to this action by a flood of complaints from minority rights activists. The APA had originally voted against publishing the DSM with an important study showing how cultural institutions influenced behavioral patterns. It seems that immigrants were often being classified as mentally ill, or emotionally disturbed by government doctors, who were taking their diagnoses straight from the DSM, and its companion manual, the International classification of Diseases -(ICD).
The implications of this error of judgment are mind boggling when one considers the incredible cultural diversity that exists in a single metropolis like New York City, let alone the other large urban centers around the country. It lead me to think that if the APA could mess-up something so obvious, how bad have they fouled-up the less than obvious aspects of the human condition.
Almost half of the respondents I interviewed said that the DSM was largely ignored by professionals, and was more of a status symbol to its members, i.e., it "padded" their credits in published papers and books. I wondered about that for a micro-second, how interested would I be in having my participation in composing a scientifically invalid manual listed among my professional credits. Ummmm, not at all.
I do have to give Norder some credit here, at least he took the time and trouble to back-up his critique with some kind of evidence, even if it is bogus.
In conclusion, I think Radka's summary is just that, a summary; a brief outline of his forthcoming, full-length thesis. The summary's explanations lack substantial depth, because he doesn't want to give away the core of his solution for free, We'll just have to buy the book to read the details.
I found the structure of the summary sound, and since no one has produced a creditable challenge to the summary's content, I prefer to reserve judgment on that until I have more information to work with.
Thank you for your patience RJ, I hope it was worth your while.
Happy happy, joy joy.
Mephisto (Esq.)
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 9:59 pm: | |
Mr. Radka wrote: "...the murderer seems to exhibit the same bilateral language disorder, twice mistaking writing for speaking. Use of the term Juwes in the written graffitus is a mispronunciation as “JOOZ” of a term a German speaker would say “YOO-whez,” and the Lusk letter is written as if in a spoken Irish accent."
Ian answered: Why not do the obvious and write is as a Jew - that is who he is trying to implicate I thought? Did Aaron speak with an Irish accent or maybe if we find a Jew with an Irish accent in the Kosminsky clan we can actually name Jtr for the first time in 100+ years and put this case to bed.
>>Please, Ian, get a life will you? When the psychopath writes to George Lusk, he doesn’t care if Lusk thinks the murderer is a Jew. He only cares that the POLICE AND THE COURTS think the murderer is a Jew. That’s because Aaron is a Jew, and it is the police who would arrest Aaron, and the courts that would try him. When the psychopath writes to Lusk, he’s only concerned with getting Lusk to do what he wants him to do in the immediate sense, which is to resume his actions to get Henry Matthews to put up a big reward. To that end, he thinks it a good idea to really scare Lusk, so as to get him off the dime and moving quickly. Accordingly, he uses various devices in the letter to accomplish that. “From Hell,” the reference to cannibalism, the threat of violence against Lusk, and so on are all designed to get him scared and appalled. The stage Irish accent is for the purpose of adding drama to the presentation, to make Lusk as afraid as possible, in the same sense that an Irish accent added drama to many theatrical productions taking place at the time in the area. How much simpler can I make it?
Maybe you have a better idea than the murderer had, Ian. Maybe it would have been better to write the letter to Lusk “with a Jewish accent,” if that were possible. But can’t you see the problem in bringing this up? The Ripperologist is charged with the responsibility to explain the evidence—what did in fact happen—not with explaining at any point in time what the murderer should have done next. Once you take up the latter tack, you are removing the empirical case evidence from consideration and entering the realm of subjectivity.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 8:20 pm: | |
1.“With the JtR case being riddled with books claiming to have solved the case when all they do is offer unsubstantiated and illogical conjecture, I think it's important to ensure that new claims offered here can be shown to be one of 1) a clear deduction from the evidence based upon reasonable premises 2) a reasonable inference drawn from other cases that are shown to be similar to the JtR case 3) the claim is clearly labled as "an assumption".”
>>You certainly like to hamstring yourself with restrictions, don’t you? What does this get you, may I ask? Do you know? I like to open, not close doors. I get this from reading Plato, where the ground of philosophy is the Socratic elenchus, or asking questions. I like to give myself a chance, logically, not close off my possibilities. Who are you to presuppose what the possibilities of thinking are?
2. “Deductions are the best conclusions, because if the premises are true the deduction is true; this is why the premises must be very solid. With JtR, few things outside the crime sequence itself will fall into this category. The only way to overturn a deduction is to attack the premises, because if the premises are true the deduction must also be true.”
>>No. What you mean to say is: “If the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises, then the conclusion must be true.” Incidentally, when you say: “With JtR, few things outside the crime sequence itself will fall into this category” you are taking a position diametrically opposed to that of your good buddy Mr. Evans. He basically throws the crime scenes away as evidence, and instead reads the Littlechild letter, or offers information about Tumblety’s pursuit in America by the Met, etc., all of which have little to do with the case evidence.
3. “Inferences are shaky, because even if the evidence from the other cases is shown to be entirely accurate, it does not necessarily follow that the JtR case must be anything like them at all. Inferences should be viewed as "hypotheses", or guesses, that still need verification.”
>>Inferences may be used to define oppositions, which would then define further oppositions in the tripartite Hegelian sense. Following the evidence, I define a series of such oppositions in the Thesis. This ultimately justifies my epistemological center by the completeness of my analyses of the case evidence. “Verification” takes place only at the end of the evidence, not opposition by opposition. Hegel only knew he was right when he was done. Two-sidedness is the foundation principle of the universe, you know.
4. “Assumptions are simply guess work. A statement made simply because on the off chance it is true, the rest of the story follows. Assumptions should be avoided at all costs. The only time an assumption can be justified at all is in the case where if you make one assumption, suddenly a lot of aspects of the case come into focus and make sense. This is refered to as "Bootstrapping the assumption". Really all bootstrapping does is allow one to ensure that the theory is internally consistent. It does not really confirm the assumption to the level that a deduction must be true. It's sort of like an inference, but the claim does not necessarily come from "other cases" and could just be a "gut feeling". Regardless, it still must be viewed as a "guess that needs verification". By which I mean, it tells us where to look for more evidence to see if the assumption can be confirmed or disconfermed; and either is always possible.”
>>This is a nice paragraph, probably the best you’ve contributed to this thread. It outlines the philosophy behind your method of working on the case. I can respect it. However, it is not the only way to skin the logical cat. With respect to the Whitechapel murders, 116 years has shown us that there isn’t enough hard evidence available to keep your kind of logic going long enough to solve the case. Therefore, some other sort of logic ought to be tried.
5. “If David's solution was anything more than creative, then he wouldn't have to present non-answer after non-answer to the questions and problems posed to him. The section of his summary that deals with the double event has been targeted mostly because here is where the summary becomes most unrealistic. It is here where he makes the most concentrated series of unsubstatiated claims. All we've been asking is for him to substantiate these claims. Provide the information that warrents his assertions.”
>>I agree, my analyses fail based on your logical method. That is why you think I’m not answering, when I am. Ripperologists have never appreciated what they have got right in front of them, because they never tried to take it all in as a whole.
6. “I, at least, don't really expect David to answer coherently, or specifically, any of the problems put to him. However, he does post his evasive reactions as replies. By doing so, it gives everyone who comes here the oppertunity to read David's summary, read the issues of concerns, read his replies, and then to decide for themselves what they think.”
>>Clearly there haven’t been any serious criticisms of my main line of thinking made here yet—not that there couldn’t be any. Mr. Norder has said literally nothing in twenty posts; he is so one-sided he even adds sound effects like “Ouch!” as if giving my reaction to his points as he makes them. I am the first person to give a coherent explanation of the double event, through and through, based on the crime scene evidence. Everyone who comes here has the opportunity to read Mr. Hamm’s opinions, and decide for him or herself just how much they think he understands concerning what I’ve done.
7. “If we all just ignored David's summary, said we thought it had problems, and left it at that, we would be just as guilty as David. We would be expecting people who do not know us to accept our word that David's theory has problems while not demonstrating what we mean by that. People who come to the Casebook do not have the experience that we all have. And much of that experience and knowledge about the case is a result of the combined effort of everyone here posting their views, and posting their concerns about offered explanations. I think it is everyone's obligation to compliment David for his creativity, to thank him for a novel story line, even to thank him for suggesting to look at the case with the proposed "solution" as a working model. And, everyone here has done just that. We've all read David's summary, and we've found it lacking.”
>>Speak for yourself, please; not everyone has found it so. It is really funny to hear you write how you have an obligation to demonstrate what you mean by the problems my theory has, and then you don’t demonstrate it. I get the feeling that people are expressing a temperamental dissonance with respect to me personally, rather than offering real critiques of my positions on the case.
8. “We then went back and pointed out where and why we found it problematic. Rather than see this feedback as a good thing, David has taken the attitude that any suggestion of error on his part is evidence of lack of intellegence on our part for asking.”
>>Most of the criticisms of my work are a cheap, puerile attempt on the part of a few people to try to get me to somehow cave in or concede a piece of my position. The exaggerated flaps concerning the tailoring symbols, and “Juwe” are examples. If they can bait me into saying “Yes, I’ll retract that” they figure they can put a big red feather in their cap, and prance about before their little buddies with suddenly improved status. You can read all about this on a competing web site, with Mr. Norder one of the featured attractions there. Never mind the tiny effect it would have on the theory taken as a whole—if they can “defeat” David Radka they’d have the world in the palm of their hand, they think. It all really doesn’t have anything to do with my work. It’s all so dreary.
9. “In other words, David has no intention of actually learning anything. It's been pointed out to him by various posters that psychopathy is not illustrated by the intentions he attributes to his proposed killer. This means that his assertion the killer is a psychopath contradicts his description. The simplest explanation is that David doesn't understand the psychological disorder psychopath.”
>>The Whitechapel murderer is a near-classic and entirely typical case of psychopathy, as described in the literature. Read it for yourself and you’ll see.
10. “So, it was suggested he learn a bit about it, and learn about some of the more delusional disorders, such as schizophrenia (not the only delusional disorder, but a good starting point). David refuses to do either, and points to Clerkly, and offers examples from Clerkly. His examples demonstrate further his lack of understanding of the subtle differences between the disorders. The fact that the described character does not measure up on the psychopathic checklist, or the DSM IV's criterion (which are how the psychological condition of psychopathy are defined: meaning if you do not measure up on these, you are not a psychopath by definition) doesn't seem to bother David at all (which again seems to go against his claims of philosophical training; where a claim "A" is in Set 1, is rendered null and void if it can be demonstrated that "A" violates the definition for membership in set 1).”
>>QUIT READING YOUR BLASTED CHECKLISTS!!! READ THE UNDERLYING CASE HISTORIES INSTEAD!!! THAT’S WHERE YOU LEARN ABOUT THE TYPE!!! YOU DON’T LEARN ANYTHING BY SPENDING AN HOUR WITH A CHECKLIST!!! YOU NEED TO SPEND A FEW YEARS WITH THE INTERACTIVE DESCRIPTIONS OF ACTUAL PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES FOUND IN MANY CASE HISTORIES!!! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS, NOT ITEMS ON A CHECKLIST!!!
11. “Anyway, in many respects I think there is sufficient information available now for people to make up their minds about whether or not David has solved the case. And, although I may never know what an "epistomological centre" is, I won't lose any sleep over it.”
>>Please see my post on this, now in the queue.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
1."Much has been said of the graffitus and why JtR had to waste 40 minutes finding chalk to write the message. To quote:
'The murderer needed to obtain chalk, compose the cryptic text in reflection of several rich contexts, especially the Duke Street sighting, and determine a suitable location where the writing would quickly provoke conflict between gentiles and Jews.'
So because he's been seen in Duke street he suddenly has to search for chalk to write a cryptic massage. Sounds reasonable in and of itself.
BUT read back at the summary earlier than this statement. To quote:
10. The Purpose of the Change in Modus Operandi, Duke Street:
SPECIALLY CHOSEN VENUE: (1) The time and position at the head of Church Passage were chosen to present the murderer and his victim to members and patrons leaving the Imperial Club at closing.
So he's been spotted and simply has to find something to leave a written message with a hidden meaning to cause a rift between the Jewish communities and between Jewish and gentile communities. Errr, didn't he specifically choose the locations of both events so he could be spotted, a sign of planning in itself."
>>Ian, get a life will you? Didn’t I point out in the Summary that the psychopath was thrown a curve ball in Duke Street? There he encountered a man he recognized (Levy) walking together with two others he didn’t, an unpredictable situation that changed his plan, whatever it was. We don’t know exactly what the original plan might have been because he didn’t exercise it, but we do know what the new plan was, because it is in the evidence. Further, the new plan coincides with his previous Berner Street actions. The new plan was to provide the three Jews a message that would intimidate them into shutting up, whether or not Levy spoke to the others about recognizing him. Since the graffitus wasn’t a part of the original plan, the chalk wasn’t either, thus he had to go and get some chalk. What could be simpler?
2. “So why then "panic" as inferred into writing an unplanned message - maybe he only planned to be seen by one person and not three.”
Ian, Ian, you’re on the backside of the moon. Once he sees Levy with the two other men, he’s got to decide whether or not to kill Eddowes. If Levy mentions the matter of knowing him to the other two and he kills Eddowes, then all three will know who killed Eddowes, or at least Levy will know and the other two will be able to tell the police that Levy knows, if they hadn’t been provided his name. He decides to kill Eddowes, a move that represents the opposite of panic. If he’d panicked, he’d leave Eddowes and kill someone else instead, or just go home. He kills Eddowes because he’s formulated a new plan that he’s confident will keep him completely safe from apprehension, and that plan is the graffitus. There is no panic involved. The indication is one of serene and supreme confidence in himself.
3. “If it wasn't panic, then why the need to leave any message which hadn't been planned before - he seems to be a fastidious planner? (tailoring marks, longitudinal disection, correct places to be seen by Jews, earlier manipiulating Stride to stand there while he stands at the end of the street waiting for a passing Jew...)”
The need to leave the message arises not because of panic but because of the simple logic of the situation he’s in. He recognizes Levy. He doesn’t know for sure if Levy recognizes him, but cannot discount that he does. Therefore if he wants to kill Eddowes, he’s got to have a plan for all three Jews. The plan is the graffitus. This is not panicking, this is planning.
4. “If the message were specifically planned, he'd either a) have chalk readily available b) chalk the message right next to the body c) have written the message prior to the murder and leave it on the victim (BOTH victims of that evening) d) have used language with a polish slant to help implicate Aaron e) write a note later and send it with the half-a-apron f) shout Lipski at the second event g) etc etc etc...”
>>Ian, Ian! These things are not in the evidence! He didn’t do these things!!! I’m only here to explain what he did, not what he ought to have done!! He didn’t plan the message before he arrived in Duke Street because he couldn’t have planned on running into one Jew he knew together with two he didn’t. He didn’t chalk right next to the body because he didn’t have chalk with him, and it also might have slowed him from leaving the scene. He didn’t compose the message prior to the murder, because prior to the murder he’d had no idea he’d need a message! He’s implicating Aaron with the graffitus, why does he need a Polish slant to it? I mean, Aaron is a Jew and the message is about the Juwes, isn’t it? Who would he send the half-apron to? The purpose of the graffitus is to get the message into circulation immediately, so the three Jews will be intimidated by it as soon as they wake up the next morning. He doesn’t have time to wait for the mail!!! If he had shouted “Lipski!” in Duke Street, Eddowes would have figured him a nut case and left him alone! He only shouts it in Berner Street because he’s already attacked the woman there!
5. “A phsycopath _doesn't_ panic we're told. He has _no_ emotions or feelings, he's not afraid... so why, when he's spotted, must he suddenly panic and need to reinforce his message to Levy and spend 40 minutes searching for chalk?”
>>A psychopath doesn’t have enough of an internal warning system regarding personal trouble to get much alarmed in most circumstances, although when a negative result becomes an immediate certainty he might panic. If a psychopath fell out of an airplane while not equipped with a parachute I’d think he’d perhaps panic, since he’d know his death were a certainty. John Wayne Gacy panicked when he saw the gurney coming to take him to the death chamber, albeit he’d hadn’t prior to that despite the enormity of the evidence presented against him and the certainty of his execution. A psychopath has SHALLOW emotions, not NO emotions; this concept seems a very difficult one for many posters here to understand. This is because he is essentially incapable of the emotion of fear, and the rest of his emotional life never develops the life-enhancing, life-protecting, and interactively life-valuing depth and complexity of feeling the rest of us take for granted. The muderer’s 40 minute delay prior to writing the graffitus is, I think, another indication of his LACK of panic. I see him as feeling 100% confident throughout that he’d land on his feet, like a cat.
6. “He has signs of being a planner but strangely when his plan works and he is spotted he panics?”
>>Ian, Ian. Every psychopath is a planner, but a terribly bad planner. That’s why they all sometimes succeed, but eventually get caught. They don’t panic until it’s too late to save their lot, because they just can’t imagine they’ll ever have to pay any price whatever for anything they might do.
7. “But we are dealing with a phsycopath, so I suppose anything is possible... (sigh, literally it seems anything we want to make up will fit JtR whether it make sense or not)”
>>If you think I’m making up anything about JtR, purchase some good books on psychopaths for yourself.
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
