|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 2:24 pm: |       |
Mr. Radka wrote: "I study JtR on the facts of his own case, based on the information we have about him and the nature of his personality from his crime scenes. I'm not going to confuse or mix him up with anybody else based simplistically on the other person having done what I privilege myself to think of as "the same" as what he did."
Mr. Andersson answered: Based on facts???? You mean... on your imagination and on psychological mumbo-jumbo. Not many of your deductions are supported by the crime scene evidence, Mr Radka, from a factual point of view. But since everyone else here besides you are "incompetent", what do we know?
I can't believe this thread still lives...”
Mr. Radka’s rebuttal: We seem to have a persistent problem concerning my belief on the one hand that my work is supported by the evidence, and the belief of critics on the other that it isn’t. Let’s explore this difference.
1.The Summary provides direct answers to 44 different questions concerning the case evidence, integrated into a whole. These encompass all the fundamental issues Ripperologists have been pursuing for over a century. Certainly in my work on the case I have not avoided those areas of the case scenario and evidence that the field doesn’t understand; quite the reverse, I have fully explained them and founded my case solution on them. What other Ripperologist attacks and explains the case evidence, in terms of cause and effect, better than this? What better model for Ripperology could there be?
2.I effectively explain the chronology of the actions of the murderer with his pathology in mind. I show why he modified his M.O. when he did to account for changes in his environment as they played upon him. I.e., the double event followed the Leather Apron affair, and was an attempt to extort the reward; Miller’s Court followed the double event, and was an attempt to force Levy to capitulate, etc. No one else has ever made intelligence out of the chronology.
3.You say: “Not many of your deductions are supported by the crime scene evidence, Mr Radka, from a factual point of view.” I think you are mixing your modes on this one. I’m not essentially trying to explain by asking “how” questions, addressing the murderer’s function, but rather by asking “why” questions, assessing his changing motivations as exhibited in the evidence, especially in the chronology. I’m tying the changes of M.O. at different times into his pathology, thus providing an illumination of his motivations. The lack of a “factual point of view,” under which giving an account of the case is limited to working with tangible clues, is not a criticism that directly addresses what I am attempting to do. Its like criticizing a contractor for not using enough wood in building the house when it always was his intention to build the house from bricks, not wood. We have a disconnection here. If you want to criticize me for not posing enough “how” questions, then you must in fairness adequately compliment me for getting as far as I do with the “why” questions. Thanks again to Mephisto for pointing out this dimension.
4.Show me ANYWHERE my theory deviates from the case evidence. It analyzes the case evidence fully, and is entirely plausible in view of it. I don’t have the murderer committing two murders in Miller’s Court, do I?
5.Everything I say is also verified, taken as a whole, by the center of psychopathy, which can be researched independently of the murders.
6.The theory is logical and satisfying.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
“David's claims that the "fraudulent claims" come from emperical researchers is amusing. Such claims usually come from those who start with a full blown theory that has little evidence behind it. Then, they set out to "prove it", and come wind, rain, or shine, you can bet your boots they do "prove it". They may claim to be "emperically based researchers", but it's usually quite clear they've mislabeled themselves. In fact, it's the emperical researchers who tend to be the ones pointing out "such claims are unfounded", and pointing out how the claims are not supportable or justified.”
>>Mr. Hamm is here using a typical blame-transference trick. He seeks to get readers to blame me for what others have done, based on the implied likelihood I have done the same. My work on the case is not being discussed here.
From top to bottom, I’ve found that Ripperologists so exclusively ground themselves in tangible quantities, hard evidence, and objective empiricism as the sole abode of reason in the case they unreflectively embrace fantastic and sometimes even fraudulent works. When you have convinced yourself that there is simply no way to ensure truth in Ripperology other than by strict empiricism, you turn your back to monkey business as long as it’s based on objective research. In our time, the term “research” is virtually synonymous with the term “Ripperology,” and the term “thinking” has little to do with the matter. Part of this is because the field recognizes British leadership—the case being “theirs” originally. British philosophy is empirical in nature, and reflects the tenor of the British people as patient, adventurous, emotionally cold, pragmatic, detail-oriented, science-oriented, and empire-oriented. The purpose of the British Empire was scientific in nature. What it did was utilize superior technology and leadership to expand itself throughout the world in all directions. Once it got to exotic, unknown places in America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere, it made massive detailed observations and returned the information home. This was then duly evaluated, cataloged and placed into great numbers of leather-bound volumes. These then served as one of the bases of the scientific revolution, an invaluable contribution by the British to the human race. The British Empire operated chiefly like a deep space probe such as Cassini. It went way out there, made observations, and returned them home.
On the other hand, their empirical nature has left the British culturally programmed to eschew ideas as a legitimate driver. They were caught flatfooted when men in their colonies recognized this weakness, applied the proper set of ideas, and brought the empire down. I mean Thomas Jefferson with democracy, Mao Tse-Tung with his Communist manifesto, and Gandhi with nonviolent resistance. The British differ from the continent, which is basically opposite in terms of cultural drivers. Here there is an emphasis on ideas over data, quality over quantity, and mastery over empiricism. The problem with that, of course, is that once in awhile you have to put up with the big bad ideas of a Hitler or a Lenin in order to have the big good ideas of a G.W.F. Hegel or a J.J. Rousseau.
Empirical work is too limited to solve the case alone. There aren’t enough “why’s” available to the empiricist to solve the case. He keeps trying based on “how,” or asking hard-boiled questions regarding the data of the crime series, only to find he runs out of data before he gains mastery of it. Thus so often we find data additions that are disjointed from the case evidence. Don’t you folks ever feel the least bit queasy, say, when you read page after page on Tumblety’s travels through the American heartland? Don’t you ever wonder why you are given this to read? Mephisto was correct in his recent evaluation of this aspect of my work. Many of the people here are criticizing me as if I were an empiricist who can’t prove his case on the hard facts. But I try to ask questions and face the issues of the case from the standpoint of qualities, colors, chronology, human nature, known psychiatric conditions, culture, in more of a “why” modality. I think the case is overdetermined on the side of the masculine. The great majority of theorists have been men, more determined by the optical, the quantitative than by the sensual, the qualitative. It is no surprise to me that the first person to see value in my work was a woman, Ms Natalie Severn.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 12:03 pm: | |
1.“I am interested in your definition of "epistomological centre", which you use in a manner to suggest it is a fundamental concept with regards to your approach. I have let you know the steps I have already taken in my attempts to find a definition of this term, which I would have thought represents a serious and intellectual approach to understanding your theory. To restate my efforts, I have made inquiries of a friend of mine in the philosophy department at the university where I work (I lecture in the psychology department, and though interested in philosophy, I am by no means an expert; and though I lecture in psychology, my area of expertise is not clinical disorders; although I do know something about them). My philosophy friend, however, was not familear with the term "epistomological centre", and in his opinion it was ... an odd phrase. I then logged on to the libarary computers and connected to the philosophy data base. This allows us to do word searches and find academic articles and publications related to a given topic. So I tried a search on "epistomological centre" and "epistomological center", neither of which resulted in any hits. Nor did a search on your name (I was interested to see if your "presentation" was listed as conference presentations are often included. No luck there either, but the data bases don't go back all that far)."
>>Please don’t make such a fetish out of this term. It’s almost like you want to get hold of my worn underwear, or something like that. There is nothing fancy here. Apparently it’s a term of my own making. “Epistemological” is there to connote that we’re asking questions about what we know and don’t know about the Whitechapel murders. “Center” is there to connote that we’re talking about the main idea of the case. Put the two together and you’ve got what I mean: a criticically estimable main idea of the case. My presentation was at the International William of Ockham Colloquium of St. Bonaventure University, at Olean, New York, in the fall of 1985. My paper was entitled (if I remember correctly) “William of Ockham and the Discursive Style of Philosophy of the Thirteenth Century.” This academic work on my part has nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders; readers should note the reason Mr. Hamm is asking for this personal information about me is a fishing expedition. He wants to not find it in the database, then write an article somewhere and say my claims of educational achievement were not verified by his research. This would in turn besmirch my reputation in the Ripperlogical field. The whole scheme is so transparent and hopeless; it ought to provide you an idea of the level of common faith in which he asks me questions about my theory.
2. “So, I then hit a dead end. That leaves me with two possibilities. One, that you've made up the phrase as your own jargon because it captures some particular aspects and concepts that take too long to spell out completely. Or two, it's jargon someone else has created, probably for the same reasons, that is not in common use by modern philosophy scholars whose work is covered in the academic database. In the latter case, I'm assuming you've found this phrase in someone's book. If so, there will be a definition of exactly what the author intends by this concept of an "epistomological centre". I've asked a few times for you to reproduce that definition, and those were serioius requests.”
>>”Philosophy scholars” use the term epistemology all the time. Epistemology, important over the 2,500-year history of philosophy, is out of fashion at present, in favor of deconstructionist theories. I made a point to use it in part in order to indicate that I had generally more of a non-postmodern position on the case. (Not to say I’m contrary to the work of deconstructionists such as Alexander Chisholm, and not to say the Thesis does not incorporate some postmodern elements, especially concerning Robert Anderson.)
3. “If, however, you are the author of the phrase "epistomological centre", then I've asked for you to produce your definition so that we all can be sure we are talking about the same thing. And, as a matter of interest, why haven't you chosen to use a more common philosophical term for this concept?”
>>Because I’m an innovator, son. You don’t pay Dave Radka to hear what Plato said.
4.“These are fair questions, and they are of interest to me and probably to others as well. They relate to what appears to be a fundamental concept in your approach. If you feel you are being unfairly treated because people are not understanding your approach, then it behoves you to define the concepts behind your approach. If you are unable to provide a definition, then it would be interesting to at least hear why you are unable to define a term you use so freely.”
>>Well, it looks like I have been able to provide a definition of epistemological center, and also prove my claimed academic achievement. Now I’d like to ask you a question. Why are you so obtuse to think everyone can’t see through what you’re doing?
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
1."I need not offer empirical data to support every logical conclusion either... The excessive use of empiricism is what has damned Ripperology to the realms of the fraudulent for decades." Mr. Radka returns here to his favorite theme. Of course, it's really a non-sequitor, a jumble of various logical errors, including a variation on the old "Either/Or" fallacy. He's saying that since empiricism has "failed" to solve the case it's therefore o.k. to resort to metaphysics. This is sneaking in through the kitchen. (Note also the loaded phrase, linking ‘empiricism’ with fraud).”
>>Note: As a sophist, Mr. Palmer is fundamentally opposed to philosophy and metaphysics, irrespective of Ripperology. I assume he is referring to the center. My answer to this charge is that every Ripperologist is a de facto epistemologist, whether he knows it or not. The difference concerning me is that I think about what my center ought to be before I start pronouncing upon the doings of the case. Do you think Cornwell with her Dream Team is not an epistemologist? I think DNA is her Bible. And Mr. Evans with his Littlechild letter, don’t you think this pervades all his work on Tumblety? If you don’t raise your work to the level of criticism, then you let events determine it, i.e., buying the Littlechild letter.
2.“One might simply argue that there isn't, wasn't, and never will be any "empirical data" (ie. evidence) to pin the crimes on anyone. The murderer left no trace. (Sir Robert Anderson, a lawyer, even admitted this, after a fashion). The "failure" to solve the case, therefore, wouldn’t really be a failure, it would be the correct ethical resolution. The D.A. doesn’t have enough evidence to prosecute, why must he be damned? This is a strange mind-set of Mr. Radka's, I think. Is he saying that the case be solved by hook or crook?”
>>Ethics? What has it got to do with the case? Resolution? How does not solving the case resolve anything? Let me get this straight—you want to NOT resolve the case, NOT link the various evidentiary pieces together, and you’ll feel SATISFIED with that? That’s like cutting off your you-know-what! I’ve said it before—there are people posting here who LIKE chaos.
3.“Alas, in the end, Mr. R's shuffles his feet a little and offers up item #44.
44. Might There Be Any Empirical Evidence Readily Available To Assist In Proving the Thesis of Alternative Ripperology?
The dinner guests have arrived at the banquet, and the host is now blushing. Having bad-mouthed empiricism, the clock has struck 7 P.M. and he realizes the silver platters are empty. He makes a quick phone-call to his friend the Empiricist, telling him to dash around the corner for a bucket of chicken. If Mr. R "need not offer" empirical data to "solve the case", why the last-minute appeal?”
>>Bad mouth no, pith yes. I’m not against empiricism or empirical proof. What I’m against is the idea that the term “reason” refers only to empiricism. It stands to reason that if the Lusk letter has handwriting on it comparable to any document in Aaron’s life, such as his commitment papers, this information ought to be made available to the field. I’m giving people an idea of what to look for.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 152
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
And so it continues...
David's strategy is to dare people to find any one thing wrong with his theory and then ignore the countless numbers of errors already pointed out to him. One of the more damning examples is that the diagnostic criteria professionals use contradict what he says about psychopathy, so he angrily shouts out in all capital letters that those should be ignored. Why? Because supposedly they are to be trusted less than his layman opinions formed after reading a book more than 50 years out of date.
And if that weren't absurd enough, we're supposed to believe that "Mephisto" called up a handful of anonymous professional psychotherapists, got past the secretaries, didn't pay an hourly fee and asked questions to try to support his stance in an online argument. So when he discovers what anyone who took even an intro to psych class knows, that there's some controversy over some of the classifications of mental disorders, he calls the entire professional process "bogus" and wants us to ignore the whole thing and go with what David -- someone with absolutely no training or professional credentials -- says about the issues instead.
Of course what Mephisto fails to account for is that even if the entire American Psychiatric Association were thrown out and its DSM criteria dissolved, David would still would not be the one who gets to define what psychopathy is. For example, Dr. Robert Hare -- mentioned by David earlier as an expert whose writings he allegedly is familiar with -- thinks the DSM criteria do not go far enough and has his own guidelines, which are accepted by many professionals. And, again, what he says about the condition directly contradicts David's claims on several important points with a direct bearing on David's theory.
And if Mephisto were to come along and insult Dr. Hare and his supporters too, there'd be a long, long line of people he'd have to discredit (successfully, I might add, not with ridiculous sweeping generalizations) before what an accountant with a bizarre Jack the Ripper theory has to say should be considered as a credible source on the topic.
Similarly, David has a long, long way to go before his ideas about the Ripper case can be taken seriously. He doesn't seem willing to take any steps to do so, however. Ignoring points of criticism as supposedly "literally nothing" and tossing out insults left and right won't bring any respect. If he cares about that, he will change his behavior. If not, it's his loss, not ours.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 10:10 pm: | |
Somewhere in the mess above, David Radka wrote about:
"the tenor of the British people as patient, adventurous, emotionally cold, pragmatic, detail-oriented, science-oriented, and empire-oriented."
You guys aren't buying this crap, are you?
Blake, Keats, Shelley, Coleridge, Byron just to name some off the top of my head from a single period..... There are plenty of others from every other moment in the history of British literature.
And since someone mentioned Kant, he once wrote an essay called "On Nationalism" that is chock full of similarly hilarious and stupid stuff. Check it out.
I read David's thesis once, a while back, and I couldn't find the place where he proves even that there was just one killer of all these women.
Maybe I missed that part.
By the way, in case anyone is wondering, there's no such thing as "deconstructionist theories." This is one thing I know about, having written a lengthy PhD dissertation in large part on the work of (and with the generous guidance of) Prof. Derrida. Whatever "deconstructions" might refer to, they cannot be "theories" per se. Derrida speaks explicitly to this point in an essay called "The States of Theory." It's collected in a book of the same name edited by David Carroll. Check it out, too.
Just stopping by to chuckle,
--John
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 276
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Hey There Mephisto -
Hehehhe, ok ok, we've taken our pot shots at one another, lets move on to more adult (and stimulating) conversation with out attacking one another, shall we? :P I'll play nice if you do, fair enough?
You had typed "My reference to Plato was meant to accentuate the difference between knowledge and opinion, i.e., Radka and Mullins respectively."
In response I would say that on some level, you have failed. First, I was making a joke when I said I had no idea what 'the form of the good' was. I have ran my post by a few people and since they all know me, they know it was a joke. It might not have come off that way in my post, however, so I can understand your response.
Secondly (and perhaps more importantly) that still doesn't change the fact that it was meant as a joke and you might take yourself a little too seriously from time to time. It's ok, I do this too. Radka suffers from the same thing as well. Let's go ahead and clear things up a bit with a bit of history.
As it is apparently clear, you do not know me from Adam. Not that it matters much, but I think I have been here longer than David or perhaps you if you've only been here 5 years. I was here from almost the very beginning in some form or another. I just didn't register until very recently. Spry and I used to work at the same place (not at the same time mind you). I might have also registered under an alter ego myself. In truth, I didn't. So allow me to introduce myself so that we don't get off on the wrong foot again. Hi, I'm Jason. I'm a retired computer programmer and unix system administrator who now passes his time as an editor for internal publications at the worlds largest company (at least they tout themselves as such  ) And you are?
Speaking of alter egos. I like your previous example, but I do not believe "Radka" is an alter ego. His information is publically available on google. A quick phone call to him could clear up any confusion as to his real identity. Providing of course he tells the truth.
I think you might have over looked the fact that in the beginning, I was open minded. I asked a few questions. I got a slightly silly response. I asked a few more, I got an even sillier responses. Yada Yada Yada.. I'm sure you have read a large portion of this thread and many others as you catch up. Allow me, if you will, to fill you in on why I have taken the stance toward David that I have.
Psssssssst everybody.. come close. It's time to play "Get to know Jason".
I have 2 card carrying members of "Team Psychopath" in my family. Both are very close to me and with both I have had many interactions with for many years. Neither behave in any real manner similar to what David would like me to believe. They both also suffer from a few other mental disorders. Of course they are never referred to as a 'psychopath'. We hardly ever refer to their 'condition'. If we are forced to, we call them what their doctors call them, 'sociopath'. According to their practicing (keyword) physicians the term 'psychopath' went out a long time ago. Their reason for it going passe? "Most people got it confused with the movie". Though some told me that since the term was coined by Clerkly, the condition has been studied deeper and that the name change was due to new understandings of the condition. The latter is probably more akin to what actually transpired. Thus the preferred term 'sociopath' is now more commonly used.
Instead of coming out and say "Hey David, your so full of BS your eyes are brown. I know because I have 2 in my immediate family!!" I decided that it would be best to be an adult about things and ask him his history of treating or diagnosing 'psychopathy'. Of course, this just really pissed him off and he resorted to name calling instead of answering my questions.
"Hell, he could be a doctor for all I know!" I thought. "I might want to ask him about a few things before I go off an assume (we all know what happens when you assume)." Said my inner moppet. So I asked my questions and I received no answers. At this point I could have either presumed he knows what he is talking about or presumed he doesn't. I went with the latter. As it turns out he isn't a doctor. He's an accountant. From what I can gather because he won't respond to me, he's only read about sociopaths in books. He still calls them psychopaths while most practicing physicians call them sociopaths. He hasn't even _dealt_ with a properly diagnosed (read: card carying member) sociopath before. So you can wax philosophical and make all the references you want to Plato, caves, knowledge and opinion (though I would hope you wouldn't, since I have made the first step at attempting to keep the dialog civil). I still do not believe it changes the fact (not opinion) that I have extensive dealings with 2 sociopath's and their doctors.
Unless David can answer my questions, I'm of the mindset that I am probably a little more equipped that he is to say what a sociopath would or wouldn't. If only from observation alone. Where as I have dealt directly with them, he has not, etc. Even then, however, I am not a doctor AND I could still be wrong. The catch is: I admit it from the start. I don't go round telling people how smart I am or how wrong they are.. if you can follow where that thought is going. Regardless, these are my opinions and I am entitled to them. Just as you are yours.
But lets break it down a little further. One of my biggest gripes with David was that he wouldn't face the fact that the root idea of his summary was not original.
Creative interpretation aside, most people take the gist of his summary as "JTR was a psychopath and as such he did x, y and z". Now, I take the root of that idea to be "JTR was a psychopath" as would a great many others. I tried to explain to David that it doesn't require collegiate level calculus to determine that someone running around killing women then disemboweling them had mental issues and that someone before him _might_ have thought them psychopathic in nature, regardless of definition (the more common or the clinical). He would have none of this and stated that other parts of his summary were original. Which is true, I never claimed that the summary as a whole lacked originality. I claimed that his idea that JTR had some serious mental issues and that they might have been psychopathic in nature was not original. I know I had the idea when I first read about the case years ago. Do you know why? Because of my dealings with my relatives. Not their actions directly so much as the people and places they have... 'visted' in the past.
Go hang out in a real psych ward for a few days and come back and tell me what you've seen. It shouldn't be long before you will see the dramatic differences between what David paints as a psychopath and a real 'sociopath'. If they have any that is. The ones I have dealt with are _really_ good social engineers, if they need to be. Well, you are going to see a great number of things, but try to focus on the sociopaths
My opinion (ugh, there is that word again) is that he just hasn't had any real life experience with a sociopath. Again, that doesn't mean he is correct or incorrect in his base presumption (we can't really prove anything anymore.. the case is just to damn old, therefore, I refer to it as a presumption) for I do not have to know how a combustion engine works to drive my car, etc. I think you get the point.
This might be a good time to bring up that it's not so much what David states, it's how he states it that rubs most the wrong way. Things are often stated like they are 'a matter of fact' when in reality they are only half true (an example would how he touted for months that he knew who did it, only to have his summary list 3 possible candidates; 1 of which was unknown).
Does using the wrong terminology make David's summary wrong? No. It just shows that he is using an older source or has chosen to continue to use the word psychopath when most use the newer term 'sociopath'.
Does having first hand experience with a sociopath make me correct and him incorrect? No. Not really. Remember this happened well over 100 years ago. Sociopaths of yesteryear might not behave as sociopaths of today. It just means that I have dealt with two who do not behave in a manner David describes. So from my personal experience, David is 100% incorrect on a great many levels (since I've only dealt with 2 that I know of and they behave nothing like he insists, that's 100% in the opposite direction). I would also think that having dealt with any sociopath would put me in a better position to judge their behavior than having dealt with none. My opinion of course. Who would you rather have doing the surgery... the guy still in collage or the guy with 5 PhD's hanging on the wall and 592 successful operations behind him? Crude analogy, but still, it delivers the point.
As you are obviously a well read man, I'm sure you can see the value of doing something as opposed to reading about it being done.
Perhaps we can all stop attempting to bitch slap one another on this thread and get back on topic. Remembering of course that old adage about arguing over the internet. I propose that if we can't get along (and I have friends on both sides of this fight) that we take it to the chat room, put talk or somewhere else so that we do not eat up valuable space on Spry's server. We can create a "My god has a bigger unit than your god" thread, a "My IQ is so big, they can't even count it" thread.. hell we can even create a "Yes, but why is the rum gone?" thread (+3 cool points for naming that reference). All of which would probably be appropriate under pub talk and NONE of which will be archived.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 278
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
That should have been Cleckley, not Clerkly :P Sorry bout that.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 279
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
Hello Again All -
Since I was one of the ones that suggested we stay on topic, I was browsing around snopes today and found this:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/sister.htm
What I found interesting was her description of a 'psychopath' towards the bottom.
For those not familiar with snopes, it is a web site dedicated to cutting through the BS and getting to the truth behind lots of things (urban legends mostly, but they have expanded). They aren't always correct of course, but they try to be.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Liz Hillard
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Hello again,
I think one of the things that is so amazing about this thread is that we are given an opportunity to not only dispute interpretations of evidence, but to discuss logic. Please don't make us stay "on topic"! Mr. Radka supports his theory with a pretty rigid (and I mean that in a good way) logical framework, and I am having a great time evaluating the strengths of his detractors (which are formidable). I'm sorry to be abstract but I am fascinated by the spinning out of his theory (psychopathy), because that is the meat of it. I think that one might term the "epistomelogical center" as simply a starting point within which context we will try to understand the evidence. If it clicks, great...if not...bag it! I am a scientist and I don't think that his methods are too far off. What I try to do is evaluate the evidence, try to form a sensical theory, and then, using published material, mathematics, and a reevaluation of the evidence, break that theory down or support it, depending on how things go. Theories become precious after too much work, and thank God, they are able to be modified. Maybe that isn't the way that science is supposed to be done, but I would venture that it's the way that it is usually done. Anyhoo, I believe that I have nothing really to contribute, except that I'm going to be really pendantic and say that 1) Radka has shown us a plausible framework about thinking about the killings and 2) "epistomelogical center" might be exchanged with another term, possibly "theory". I've always understood that epistemology is concerned with HOW one gains knowledge, but you just seem to be using the scientific method! [I would be extremely pleased if we could discuss logic and philosophy off the board].
Liz |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
1.“The simple answer here is that Levy didn't get a good look at the suspect, as he said in his evidence.”
>>What Levy said isn’t “evidence” for us. What Levy said is a lie.
2. “The Goulston Street wall-writing was mere street scribbling on the wall above where the killer disposed of the portion of apron, and there were no cryptic messages left by the killer for anyone.”
>>This is unlikely on several counts. First, if it had been there for any length of time, it would have caused a disturbance. Second, the PC hadn’t seen it on his previous rounds.
3. “Mr. Radka has fallen into the trap of so many Ripper theorists. He thinks too long and hard about his own pet theory and it becomes fact in his own mind. He makes his own ground rules and convinces himself that he is right and everyone else is wrong. He simply cannot understand why everyone doesn't agree with him.”
>>I’m quite aware of why many don’t agree. I’m not a naïve person at 51, Mr. Evans.
4. “Trouble is, he has to convince everyone else that he is right. In reality the only real discovery he has made is simple. In the Ripper world the only way the case is ever going to be solved is in your own mind.”
>>I agree with the last statement, by the way.
5. “I don't think I can encourage his circular argument by contributing any more. After all, there are other things in life... aren't there?”
Somehow I don’t feel we’ve heard the last from you…
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
“"I need not offer empirical data to support every logical conclusion either... The excessive use of empiricism is what has damned Ripperology to the realms of the fraudulent for decades. "
What are you talking about?”
>>What I mean is this: I have a combination empirical/rational or ideal, not a purely empirical solution to the case. I don’t propose to tell you whodunit by fixing guilt on someone in the sense of hard evidence. This isn’t a trial or a police investigation, it’s text interpretation. I’m going to look for confirmatory logical oppositions in the evidence—such as the mutually confirming aspect of the markings on Eddowes’ face set opposite to Levy’s evasiveness—and use them as stepping stones to analyze the evidence and reach a solution. The next set of oppositions should grow out of the previous, logically. In the end, we’ll have a detailed cause-and-effect account of the whole of the evidence that will be justified 100% by the evidence. What I DON’T offer is specific, hard tangible proof for each stepping-stone. I’ve got it for some, but not for all. I can’t for example confirm for certain straight out of the hard evidence that the marks on Eddowes face are meant for Levy—the murderer didn’t write “Hey, Levy” on Eddowes face. But why would I need it for all? That’s my point.
Ripperlogical fraud arises from the converse of my method. There have been plenty of people who’ve been delighted to provide full-scale empirical accounts identifying JtR. The problem is, their empirical information is additional to the case evidence.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
“The grandiose sense of self-importance, the conceited tone, the implication that everybody who disagrees is an imbecile, the tendency to sing his own praise, these are the hallmarks of everything that David M. Radka, under whatever pseudonym he chose to use, has ever written.”
>>I don’t see myself this way. To me, whenever you undertake academic work, you’ve got to overcome. You need to look into yourself and know who you are, and why you are writing. You can’t let yourself be unconfident, or have any intellectual neuroses. You have to be able to read anything written in your field, understand and work with it, no exceptions. You have to manifest your freedom. You have to be transcendent—that is where the innovations come from. That’s the only way to be fair and do justice to the work ahead. I learned this from some good professors I had in school, by their examples and in speaking with them. There are people here who believe I ought to be neurotic like they are, be making concessions, be still “checking things out” after I publish the Summary, be concerned about using too many “big words,” be concerned about how I’m not catching many flies with vinegar and should use honey instead, and so on. In academic life, this is death. If you start worrying about this stuff, the next sound you hear is your replacement turning the lock in your office door.
When I took on this work, I knew I believed in myself.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
“But when one uses the A?R method, history is just one big wonderful board game and all the doors are open. Macnaghten being Chief Constable during the Kosiminski investigation +Kosminski strongly resembling the man seen by the PC + the identification happening at Hove+(whatever bits & pieces I dare to drudge up) = logical confirmation that the PC was Jewish. (We really don't need trivialities like documentation, do we?) Alas, if it were really this easy....”
>>I don’t put the pieces together arbitrarily, like the above. I follow the evidence, especially the chronology, in light of the center. You adhere too strictly to empirical precepts to make much progress in working out the meaning of the case.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 1:43 am: | |
Hello Mr. Mullins,
Thank you for your thoughtful message. Just like you, I prefer to "play nice". It is a lot nicer to discuss matters in a quiet and congenial atmosphere, among folks I respect, and who respect me in return. It is also much more productive when one is trying to reason with difficult concepts, and in this case, a 116 year old murder mystery.
You are correct. I didn't realize it was a joke. Not being able to see a person makes it hard to pick-up on the underlying meaning and direction of some ideas, especially without the benefit of seeing a smile or body language. Again, I must admit that, like you, and probably everyone else here, I do take myself too seriously from time to time. But, I also believe that there is a time, and place for everything, and having read Radka's summary, along with this thread from its starting point, I felt that the man was coming under some severe, and uncalled for abuse, most of it was coming from two areas: 1) people were not assessing what the summary was saying in conjunction with what the summary actually is, and 2) like I mentioned to RJ Palmer, I know Radka rubs people the wrong way sometimes, "and I wasn't surprised to find the villagers storming Schloss Radka, torches in hand". So, I decided to play "devil's advocate", and see if perhaps I couldn't get your– meaning everyone's–attention, and propose a few points that might stimulate other perspectives.
As far as my attendance record goes; I began looking in on the Casebook a few weeks after Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey's book: Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer hit the stands. Following your lead, Please allow me to introduce myself, he said as he stood-up among irregular rows of empty, dark brown metal folding chairs: My name is Joseph, and I'm an alco……..oops. Sorry, wrong web site.
All kidding aside, my name is Joseph Triola Jr., and I don't mind a good single malt or three on occasion. I grew up in Northern New Jersey, not far from Jimmy Hoffa's final resting place. The biggest influence in my life, other than my family, was my military experience.
After two years of collage, and ROTC, I left school, and joined the United States Army. I went to OCS (Officers Candidate School), and there after, extended training in small unit Air Cavalry Tactics. That's where they send newly commissioned officers to learn how to command a platoon of soldiers with small units. I served two tours of duty in Southeast Asia. Late one afternoon, we're bived, so I'm chillin. I'm taking a gulp of ice coffee from canteen II, when 60mm. mortar rounds start falling all about the place. I took a few pieces of shrapnel through my helmet (Luckily for me the damage was limited to scalp wounds, dna ereht erew on gnitsal stceffe). Near the end of my convalescence, the Army made me an offer I couldn't refuse, they paid for my last two years of college, and to thank them, I earned a Bachelors degree in engineering. They assigned me to the Department of Defense where I didn't do any engineering at all. Go figure.
I left active service in 1979 as a Captain, but remained an employee of the DoD until 1987. I had joined the reserves, right after leaving active duty, and hooked up with a local engineering battalion after I returned to NJ. I (Not the engineering battalion) was called up during Desert Shield, to go to Saudi Arabia, and do what I did at DoD. When Desert Shield became Desert Storm, the unit I was attached to, moved up to within spitting distance of the action zone. One evening, a civilian zealot pitched a grenade near where I was standing. There I was, minding my own business, drinking a cup of coffee, when someone shouts, GRANADE !!!, I immediately dove to my left. Well, not fast enough apparently, because the grenade goes boom, and I end up with twelve pieces of shrapnel up the left side of my back and my left butt cheek. Well, after another session of pick the metal out of Joseph's ass, I just wanted to go somewhere, where I could have a cup of coffee black, no shrapnel.
I stayed in the reserves, and when the World Trade Center was attacked; I went into NYC to supervise the repair of a near-by government facility, which had lost all its utilities. Shortly afterward, I was asked if I wanted to go to Afghanistan to do my DoD thing. So, I said yes, and off I went.
I wasn't there for long, I just went in, looked around, and showed some officers how to do what I did in Iraq, in Afghanistan. There were no explosive incidents this time 'round. I went home, blah, blah, blah. A little later, I received a call, asking me if I'd like to return to Afghanistan, and show a few other officers how to do what I did.
I had to ask myself, don’t these guys have anyone else who does this sheet? No, it seems I'm the only one left from a particular training group, who actually kept up with that stuff, and apparently, the only one they could con into returning, i.e., you're a very innovative guy, yada, yada, yada; OK, where do I sign. So, off I go. Budda bing, budda boom, more shrapnel, more pickin', that's it, I'm switchin' to decafe. Please, if anyone ever notices me getting innovative, just throw a handful of nails at me.
I'm currently a 53 year old student at a local university. I'm in the process of completing my degree in anthropology, concentrating in the archaeology of the Ancient Near East. I'm very interested in researching the cognitive and social psychology of the ancient world, so I might better understand: the influences that caused those societies to develop their particular signs and symbols; the origins of the people that migrated to that region at the end of the Holocene, and how they coalesced into the Mesopotamian cultures that extended from what is present day Syria to the Hindu Kush. I've been interested in archaeology since I was a kid; I began participating in excavations in the metropolitan area as soon as I got my drivers license.
In 1980, I became interested in the psychological aspects of archaeology through one of psychologists I worked with at DoD. Thanks to Uncle Sam, by 1988 I managed to earn a bachelors degree in Social Psychology.
Getting back to the central theme of your post; I did notice that you, and a few others, i.e., the more thoughtful regulars, had indeed began asking Radka pertinent questions in a courteous manner, however, there were some others who were just riding the guy's ass. And I see their actions as the catalyst for his present behavior.
These people were talking to him as if he was a 10 year old. They were baiting him as if he were a dog who's hind leg was caught in a snare. He was being attacked on all sides. I was surprised by the tone of the second post, written by Mr. Souden, usually one of the more sensitive people here. Unfortunately, it set the mood for rest of the thread.
I think you made a number of very good points, experience does indeed make one much more familiar with the nuances of psychopathy, and yes, with two psychopaths in your immediate family (GBY), you must have an variety of insights that, without question would be an advantage to Radka, or anyone else who is writing on a related subject. I have had, only limited experience, and found it quite overpowering.
One of the requirements for my soc. psych. bachelor's degree was to spend some time in wards (one 8 hr. shift, twice a week, and one day in a class room), observing and speaking with residents suffering from different types of mental disorders. I didn't last the whole semester. I would come home at night and sit in my darkened living room, and cry. I felt helpless. There was nothing I could do to help them along. I'm crying now as I'm typing this. There was nobody I could snarl at, or anyone's ass I could kick to make them change the lives of these folks. At that point in my life, I had had enough experience with trauma, to know that I didn't need anymore, so I asked my professor to let me do something else instead.
You mentioned that your relatives don't behave in a similar manner to what Radka has described, and that the current term "sociopath" is more appropriate to today's world. I believe that these two ideas are tied together in his thesis, and that the union is significant.
He clearly chose to use the word psychopath for a specific reason, and I'm sure that his use of an older source has some equally explicit purpose related to the socio-psychological conditions of London, c 1888.
If you don't mind Mr. Mullins, I'm going to call it an evening. You have some other ideas that I'd like to discuss with you, but my eyelids are going to close up shop any minute. So, thank you again for your kind and gentlemanly gesture. I look forward to picking up were we left off tomorrow (Friday).
Best regards
JT
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
“If you had the answer to the riddle, you more than likely would not go round insulting people and defending your answer. If it were correct, the answer would not _need_ defending. It would speak for itself. The odds are that you would post it for all the world to see and be done with it. Like it or not, take it or leave it style. Kinda like how Professor Einstein didn't go around saying "BUT I'M RIGHT AND IF YOU DON'T GET IT, YOU NEED TO READ MY SUMMARY ON SPECIAL RELATIVITY. YOU ARE ALSO FAT AND YOUR BREATHE SMELLS".
>>I understand that I’ve got a method that most people following the case are not going to be able to work with immediately, thus I make myself available to answer their questions as they come up. I like doing this. I see it as being an educator, serving people, not insulting them. I’m not perfect myself. I hope I don’t appear arrogant, and apologize for any hurt feelings or inconvenience if I have been.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 12:39 pm: | |
1.”(Concerning Cleckley): Yes, David, but simply releasing a new edition of the book doesn't mean that the research in it isn't outdated. If you'd stop lashing out at people and think about what you are saying you'd realize this.”
>>I would think what you’d have to do insofar as interpreting the research and case histories is to keep in mind that Cleckley was a humanist, and that nowadays humanism is about dead and been replaced by deconstructionist strategies, postmodernism, etc. That’s not hard in itself, it’s just a matter of a little translation here and there. The people that Cleckley knew and analyzed were real people.
2. “Not to mention that all modern professional references on psychopaths contradict the key points of your theory. Why do you keep ignoring that?”
>>Contradict where? What points? Why do you keep ignoring my request to be specific? Get an 8 ½ by 11 piece of paper and rule it vertically down the middle. Then write in the left column each aspect of the “outdated” psychopathic character as I use it. Then in the second column write down your “new” version. Can you do that? Post that page here so I can see what you mean. I still have no idea what you are talking about concerning the alleged outmodedness of my research. No clue whatever. You’ve never said anything specific about what you mean. I hope for your sake you’re not hoping to spring a Donald McCormick on me. You know, the author who Begg and Fido tried to contact concerning questions on his Pedachenko book. He wouldn’t respond to them, so they printed their critique of his work right next to a statement of how he wouldn’t respond, which made McCormick look very bad indeed. I’m not like Mr. McCormick—I will respond in detail to any reasonable, detailed critique.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
On June 23, 2004, Norder wrote:
"David's strategy is to dare people to find any one thing wrong with his theory and then ignore the countless numbers of errors already pointed out to him".
Tell me something Norder, how do you it? Do you use Tarot cards, a crystal ball, tealeaves, or what? You'd have us believe that by simply reading the text of Radka's post, you can divine his thoughts, or in this case, his strategy. And as far as insults are concerned, the only person insulting anyone here is you. Your liberal use of misrepresentation and obfuscation insults the intelligence of every independent minded reader here who can comprehend the deception in your messages. Do you think that simply because you label an argument "absurd" or "bizarre" that these folks are just going to suspend their judgment, and accept your definitions without question? I don't think so Norder; not everyone here has the herd mentality that you're counting on.
You use blanket statements and grandiose generalities to make some pretty bizarre assertions yourself, " Looks like I missed the Psycho-Babble comment as I didn't receive an email copy of it for some reason, unlike all the others. So you did quote it from someone, but you were lacking attribution and made it sound like that it was an idle accusation I threw at you instead of something I had backed up with facts and different language. But since you dismissed it so rapidly, here it is again: Even if "Juwe" existed as a German word back then, which it didn't as I have already explained to you from independent research separate from the facts posted by others above, "Juwes" would not be the plural" (Norder: May 15, 2004, 2:36pm). Are we supposed to believe that you did independent research "to try to support your stance in an online argument" (Norder: June 23, 2004)?
Don't be absurd. 'I also contacted the people at the website you linked to. "They tell me that the contraction "Juwe" did not exist until the 1960s as the word it's a contraction of also was not used in the way you seem to think the Ripper meant it until the 1960s" (Norder: May 15, 2004, 2:36pm). That, is truly bizarre.
If your claims are carefully examined, they reveal the underlying purpose for your ruse, i.e., you are attempting to draw attention away from your errors in judgment, and minimize the threat to your credibility. For example, you wrote:"anyone who took even an intro to psych class knows, that there's some controversy over some of the classifications of mental disorders, he calls the entire professional process "bogus" and wants us to ignore the whole thing and go with what David -- someone with absolutely no training or professional credentials -- says about the issues instead".
This statement is false and misleading for two reasons: 1) you purposely misstated my argument, and 2) you tried to obscure the unreliability of the DSM. On June 21, 2004, in a discussion with RJ Palmer, I wrote: "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". You haven't fooled anyone Norder, because anyone with the ability to reason, can plainly see that you attempted to mislead them by misrepresenting my argument, i.e., I didn't call the "entire professional process" "bogus", I called your use of the DSM manual bogus.
In your post of May 13, 2004, 9:24 am, you claimed that:
"These days there are two checklists for determining psychopathology, the DSM IV Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnostic criteria and Dr. Hare's PCL-R (psychopath checklist-revised). Neither one includes this irrationality and delusional thinking you keep bringing up. There's also nothing in them that support your beliefs that a psychopath is horrible at communication or that they lack all emotions. Yes, they are deficient in guilt and empathy, sure (that's pretty much the most important part of the checklist right there), but not anger and so forth like you say" (My emphasis).
In a 1991 article, Dr. Robert C. Carson of Duke University wrote:
As is generally known and conceded, psychiatric diagnosis of the official sort (e.g., as represented in the DSM—I and the DSM—II ; American Psychiatric Association, 1952, 1968) had become something of an embarrassment by the advent of the DSM—III because of the routine inability of clinicians to agree on what diagnosis ought to be assigned to a given patient. The DSM—III fixed that problem once and (possibly) for all by the draconian measure of effectively removing the professional judgments of clinicians from the diagnostic process and substituting sets of (almost) judgment-free decision rules, by means of which diagnoses were rendered automatic if the rules were conscientiously followed. Looking a bit more critically, however, one sees that the diagnostic reliability ensured in any such venture can be purchased rather cheaply if one is not concerned unduly with the usefulness, predictiveness, or construct validity of the information gained by the newfound assurance about the proper allocation of patients to the categories as so defined. It can be done with no more effort or fanfare than committee discussion, negotiation, a vote on the rules, perhaps a quick field trial to test clinician acceptance, and official installation–as in fact happened with the development of DSM—III ( Widiger et al., 1991 ) (Carson 1991: 302-307)".
Carson further states:
"Although increasing attention has been given to other, subsidiary forms of validity (some of which doubtless seem strange to psychologists) in the progression from DSM—II to DSM—IV , there has been and seemingly remains an unaccountable neglect of specifically directed efforts to establish networks of correlated variables that in the aggregate affirm and support the concept to which any proposed diagnosis must be presumed to refer. That is, validity at a superordinate level and its approximation would at once lay to rest most of the vexing questions DSM diagnoses typically inspire".
On May 15, 2004 you wrote:
"You still are avoiding the point that some of the supposed symptoms of psychopathy you base your theory on (lack of all emotion, disordered thinking, poor communication ability) are not at all part of the diagnostic process for either the DSM IV checklist or Hare's PCL-R criteria. These two references are used by the professionals in this field. If you make a claim about psychopaths that is not supported in these two references, then your claim is wrong, unless you are claiming than you know more about the issue than the entire profession of psychiatry" (My emphasis).
In a book characterized by Dr. Henry E. Adams, Ph.D, Research Professor, of the University of Georgia, Athens, as a text in graduate-level courses on psychopathology, sexual behavior, and research methods in psychopathology, editors D. Richard Laws, and William O'Donohue feel compelled to clarify that:
"Because we have seen already that according to the DSM, the dysfunction needs to be in the individual, it appears that the individual (as opposed to others) must be distressed by his or her sexual fantasies, urges, or behavior for the distress criterion to be met. Thus, if a mental health professional comes across a contented member of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), who clearly has sexual fantasies and urges toward children but is not distressed by these, then the mental health professional, according to DSM-IV, would not diagnose this individual as having pedophilia. It is not uncommon for mental health professionals to encounter individuals who, for a variety of reasons, are not distressed by their deviant sexual interests.
On May 24, 2004, at 9:35 pm Norder wrote: Current scorecard shows: David, an accountant, claiming that psychopaths lack all emotions, can't communicate well, and act irrationally. vs. Dr. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist Revised and the American psychiatric Association DSM IV manual, which both say otherwise. Wonder when David's going to acknowledge that instead of simply claiming that other people don't know what they are talking about…?".
In a February, 2002 on-line book review, Dr. Jeffrey Poland of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, wrote:
"The papers collected in this volume exhibit a number of shortcomings that lead one to conclude that the development process did not live up to its own standards and has not achieved some of its most important stated objectives. To begin, it does not seem likely that the DSM development process, as reflected in Volume 2 of the Sourcebook, has succeeded in effectively breaking with the long tradition (re-affirmed in both DSM-III and DSM-III-R) of basing decisions regarding the existence and nature of diagnostic categories on consensus among practitioners rather than on sound science, either in the form of carefully collected empirical data or well tested theories.
There are at least three reasons for [thinking] this. First, throughout the volume there are repeated affirmations of the lack of relevant empirical research findings bearing on issues concerning the construct and predictive validity of the categories (i.e., their scientific meaningfulness.) Most of these issues could not be so much as seriously raised, let alone resolved during the DSM-IV development process. Second, as a consequence of the conservative approach to change (viz., to make changes only when there is a “solid basis” for doing so) and the lack of relevant empirical research, the inertia supplied by past editions of the DSM dominated this most recent effort. Since it is generally agreed that DSM-III and DSM-III-R were developed on the basis of a politically derived consensus (sometimes not even among “experts”; cf., p. 647) and without being informed by any serious research bearing on the validity of the categories, it can only be concluded that DSM-IV consists largely of categories which have been introduced and retained, not on the basis of science, but on the basis of political consensus unconstrained by empirical research. Third, the explicitly articulated guideline of making decisions that increased the consistency of DSM-IV with the ICD-10 (The International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition), means that recommendations for change were made, not on the basis of empirical data addressing validity, but with an eye to enhancing agreement with a different system which, at least with respect to mental disorders, is also based on consensus largely uninformed by science".
The above quotes are lengthy, because I wanted to give the readers a sense of the unreliability and faulty scientific validity of the DSM IV manual in particular, and the DSM project as a whole, or as Radka might put it, holistically. I also felt that the full range of the author's perspectives should be presented in context to the readers. This allows them to draw their own conclusions, without any prejudicial guidance from me (Or in your case Norder, grandiose generalities). I believe that the statements of these learned men, refute and deny your claim that the DSM is a viable measure of value, and therefore, any claim you have made against the worth of David Radka's summary using the DSM manual as evidence, is profoundly bogus.
The fact that you're now back-peddling on your claims about the utility of the DSM manual,
"even if the entire American Psychiatric Association were thrown out and its DSM criteria dissolved", provides further support that my assessment of your evidence as bogus is valid.
The fact that you tried to minimize the extent of the controversy surrounding the DSM by implying that the varience is less extensive then it actually is, there's some controversy over some of the classifications of mental disorders" also supports my argument that you resorted to deception and obfuscation to protect your credibility, ego, whatever.
When you wrote: "And if that weren't absurd enough, we're supposed to believe that "Mephisto" called up a handful of anonymous professional psychotherapists, got past the secretaries, didn't pay an hourly fee and asked questions to try to support his stance in an online argument", you questioned my credibility. Now I'm questioning yours.
Norder, the fact of the matter is, you touted the DSM as the mainstay diagnostic instrument of the APA. You claimed that, " anyone who took even an intro to psych class knows, that there's some controversy over some of the classifications of mental disorders} (Norder: June 23, 2004). You informed the readers that you had "graduate level university classes in psychology and counseling education in psychology" (Norder May 13, 2004, 9:24 am). In the course of your education, you obviously had to take an "intro to psych" class. In any event, it doesn't take the wisdom of Socrates to conclude that somewhere during your education in psychology, it became known to you that the DSM manuals were troubled by major controversies, but you purposely chose not to mention that. How would you describe that choice? Tell us how we should perceive your intent. Were you just bragging? Were you being shrewd, cunning, deceptive, disingenuous, or what? Ripperology is waiting for your answer.
Anyone with any respect for the Casebook's readership would have mentioned the fact that the DSM program was problematic from its inception. As a professional editor, you had every moral obligation to inform your readers that the DSM was controversial, and to regularly remind them of that fact every time you used it to criticize Radka's summary, or else, not use the reference at all. Instead, you chose to bait, humiliate, and disparage another human being, with information that is considerably less than the tower of professional reliability you were claiming.
You constantly addressed that man in a condescending and patronizing tone that barely disguised your disdain. Did you really think that the readers here were so intellectually lazy that they couldn’t see for themselves that you had let your ego get the best of you. You took it as a personal affront that this little accountant had the intelligence, or from your perspective, the audacity, to creatively think out-side the box in your alleged field of expertise. You wrote: "No, the problem here is that I have extensive training and education in the field, and what you are saying that psychopaths do and do not do is in some ways completely opposite of how they are really like" (Norder: May 15, 2004, 2:36pm). No Norder, the problem here is it was completely opposite of what you were saying. Is your self-esteem in such a rundown condition, that the only way you can pick yourself up, is by knocking some one else down?
In your post of May 13, 2004, 9:24 am, you wrote:
Hi David,
"Psychopaths definitely have needs and emotions, they just run to the extremely selfish and often violent ends of the scale" (Norder).
>>No. They are not on the same scale as normal people, and exhibit 'an irrationality that is gross and obvious.' As Cleckley says, they represent "madness in excelsis masked behind a veneer of real sanity." You are basing what you say on your simple and lazy readings of lists of characteristics of psychopaths, thus you lack insight (Radka).
How do you know what I am basing my words on? This is all coming down to you just claiming to know more than anyone else but with nothing to back it up (Norder).
I'm not going to pretend to have professional level credentials here, but I did take graduate level university classes in psychology and counseling, including a major focus on abnormal psych, which was my emphasis. Apparently your background is that you read a book that was based upon research more than 50 years old and are coming up with your own unique interpretations of what it said" (Norder).
In my last post to RJ Palmer, I mentioned that my criticism was concerned solely with how Radka's summary is being criticized. I mentioned that with my first post, I 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.
In my post to Mr. Raney, I wrote: Since 1999, Radka has been telling everyone with eyes that he's solved the case. I've even broke his….bells about it myself a few times. But now that he's published his summary, I've put that aside. I didn't want anything from the past influencing my judgment of his work. In other words, I wanted to give the man a fair hearing, and evaluate his thesis without prejudice. My purpose here, is to reflect the Janus head conditions that these folks have created and seem content to sustain. I want to coerce, chide, wisecrack, cajole (pick whichever suits your taste) or persuade them to practice what they preach.
Norder, your critique is misguided and counter productive. You are demanding something from Radka's summary that the summary isn't claiming. It is not claiming absolute certainty.
You are asking the summary to be something other than what it is. It is a rationalist/positivist approach, try to wrap you brain around it from that point of view. You are refusing to deal with the summary on its own terms. It is a summary of a thesis. Deal with it. Give the man a fair hearing, and evaluate his summary without personal prejudice. Do you think you have the courage to do that?
Mephisto
References Cited
Carson, Robert C.
1991 Dilemmas in the pathway of the DSM. \i
{Journal of Abnormal Psychology} 100 (3): 302-307
Laws, D. Richard and William O'Donohue Eds.
1997 Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. New York: The Guilford Press
Poland, Jeffrey
2002 The DSM-IV Sourcebook, Volume 2. [from Metapsychology Online Book Reviews]:
(http://mentalhelp.net/books/books.php?id=996&type=de) Accessed on June 21, 2004.
|
D. radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 6:40 pm: | |
1.“The inherent weakness of Mr. Radka's theory is that it is entirely based on an idea developed by Paul Begg at the time of the centenary, i.e. that Anderson's word was the best available and that Levy's 'hesitations and reservations, coupled with his definite acquaintance with Martin Kosminski, have led to the surmise that he might have recognised that man as a relative or connection of Kosminski's and chosen to withhold the evidence.' ('The Jack the Ripper A-Z').”
>>Mr. Evans is simply misstating here. I do not accept Martin Kosminski as necessarily important to the case—it’s right in the Summary. Clearly I make my own case on the evidence, from soup to nuts. And Begg’s theory is a strong one in any event, entirely serviceable and respectable.
2.“So Mr. Radka's thinking, in that sense is not even original. He has devoted much thought to this idea and has come up with his convoluted and, dare we say, contrived, theory. His lengthy posts do, unfortunately, require some comment. He states, "The present Ripperological Fort Knox has been built up over this sort of thing." - I didn't even know that there was any sort of 'Ripperological Fort Knox', it appears to me that everyone has their own ideas and theories and are given free reign to publish them either here, in articles or in books. There is no consensus of opinion and it appears quite obvious that the case will never be solved.”
>>None of this has anything to do with me, as far as I can see. Perhaps you’d like to discuss the particulars of my theory, sometime. Please state specifically where my theory is “convoluted and contrived.” Give me a chance to defend it.
3.“He says, "Yes, let us place reverently every single word each witness said on the altar of our thought and worship it faithfully, that there may be no possibility we violate the great God Empirical...Let us ask no questions, that we may tell no lies." - Heaven only knows what that is supposed to mean, for any reading of Ripper material will reveal that just about everyone puts their own interpretation, or spin, on what the witnesses are recorded to have said, usually to suit some theory or other.”
>>What it was supposed to mean is that your position that Levy absolutely had to be telling the truth at the Eddowes inquest was not necessarily true. So what you are essentially saying above is that you now admit that you are twisting the truth in saying this?
4.“No one with common sense would ever suggest that everything every witness said was correct. However, the written records of the time are all we have to work with and each should be assessed on its own merits with regard to the circumstances and the other surrounding recorded evidence.”
>>The “surrounding circumstances” of Levy’s Duke Street sighting are such as to strongly indicate that he was lying at the inquest. This is common sense.
5.“Thus, it cannot be in any way compared to the gathering of the evidence of modern witnesses, for the Ripper witnesses are long-dead and beyond further questioning and, in most cases, their character and reliability cannot now be assessed. All we really can do is apply common sense and the most obvious interpretation to what they stated. So let us look at Levy's other comments that Mr. Radka accuses me of forgetting. Was it really an 'absurd comment'? Let us see. In evidence Levy stated, "I said when I came out to Mr. Harris, 'Look there, I don't like going home by myself when I see those characters about." Questioned by Mr. Crawford Levy added, "There was nothing that I saw about the man and woman which caused me to fear them." There is a simple answer to this. The man, we know, looked 'rough' and the area was known to be used by casual street prostitutes for picking up late-night clients. Levy, by his own admission, was rarely out that late and the chances are that in the past he had been subjected to verbal abuse by such a couple, that he may have unwisely looked at.”
>>There is no evidence to justify this statement about ‘verbal abuse.’ It is a purely made-up addition to the case evidence. It is a cartoon, a fantasy, a hashish dream. It is a lie.
6.“Usually having consumed much drink at that time of night, a man, or rough woman for that matter, would shout "What do you think you are looking at", coupled with invectives, to anyone unwise enough to pay attention to them.”
>>This is a tale, a story of a raconteur, an addendum, a long ash being flicked from a brown cigar. What does it have to do with the Whitechapel murders?
7.“So while Levy may have been wary of such people for that reason, he wouldn't really be afraid as he was with two companions and the couple in Duke Street obviously paid Levy and his friends no attention. This is a simple and obvious explanation for his statement.”
>>Levy had been around the corner thousands of time before, Mr. Evans. He was middle age. He’d been walking round Whitechapel for years, and seen thousands of prostitutes and Johns. He wouldn’t have been concerned about them yelling at him, since all they’d want would be to be left alone, anyway. He wouldn’t have been thin-skinned about a matter that he’s been though many times before. He wouldn’t have noticed the couple standing at the head of Church Passage at all, unless he knew the man. Lawende and Harris didn’t pipe up, did they? Why should Levy’s behavior be any different from theirs? Police research proved he didn’t know Eddowes, and the two loiterers weren’t acting strangely. This is a simple and obvious explanation for his statement.
8.“Questioned by a juryman Levy stated that his 'suspicions were not aroused by the two persons.' This, of course, would be in relation to the question as to whether Levy suspected that the man was a murderer with his intended victim. Levy would have no reason to suspect such a thing.”
>>Why did the juryman question Levy on this, do you think Mr. E? Might it have been because of something in Levy’s manner at the inquest? The evidence says that as of the point the case came to inquest, Levy knew the man in Duke Street was an acquaintance of his and the murderer, and that he (Levy) had been intimidated into silence.
8.“Mr. Radka says, "...he [Levy] expressed the feeling that there would be trouble involving them in Mitre Square. Five minutes later, that very man was eviscerating that very woman in that very square." Mr. Radka must be reading different reference books to me, I cannot find record of any such words by Levy. Or is Mr. Radka 'gilding the lily'?”
>>I believe he said at some point that he thought ‘the court should be watched,’ meaning Mitre Square. I’d like to ask readers to look this up for us. Did he say it to Harris at the time or at the inquest? The upshot was that as Levy spoke to Harris in Duke Street, Levy was thinking of the possibility of trouble in Mitre Square involving the couple.
9.“There again, perhaps my interpretation is a prime example of 'monolithic group thinking.' Mr. Radka says "There are no reliable indications that Lawende had the better view. Were you there, did you see where each man was focusing his eyes at the time?" No, Mr. Radka, he wasn't there, but then, NEITHER WERE YOU. The interpreation that Lawende had the best view of all is borne out by the surviving contemporary evidence. I'd rather go with that than, like you, dumping it to go for an opposing view built on modern unsupported theorising.”
>> The interpretation that Lawende had the best view of all is NOT borne out by any surviving contemporary evidence of which I am aware. Are you covertly implying here that because Lawende was called on to try to identify suspects later, therefore this proves he had the best view in Duke Street? If you are, it would be irrational on your part.
10.“By the way, who is Mrs. Durwood?”
Mrs. Long, the witness in Hanbury Street. Read the evidence.
11.“Mr. Radka gives his whole method of thinking away, he says "Ripperology is a game, and the one who plays best can solve the case". That is true only in the context of convincing yourself that you have solved the case.”
Socrates was playful with the men in the dialogues. This is what I meant. Playful questions, door-openers, as opposed to your dreary prejudices.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
1.“Mr. Radka wrote: "That reason, as I maintain in the Summary, was that Levy had come to Anderson telling him he’d found the murderer in the city, and the man turns out to fit exceptionally Anderson’s “diagnosis” dating back to his briefing by Swanson following his holiday, and then the man’s family including JtR tells or implies to Anderson they have their suspicions, too."
Mr. Samsa answered: If the above is true - if, of all people, Kosminski's own family would have delivered Aaron's head on a plate to Anderson and at the same time another jew miraculously and of his own free will turns up to tell Anderson he spotted the murderer in the city - why would this same Anderson almost twenty years later so emptically state about the jews in East End: "..for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice. "”
>>Mr. Radka’s rebuttal: Aaron’s family did not deliver Aaron to Anderson. Somehow Levy identified Aaron for Anderson, but refused to testify. Then later on, Anderson apparently attempted to get more out of the situation, possibly a conviction, by pressuring Aaron and his family. The family responded probably by telling Anderson the same thing Levy told him, that they had their suspicions about Aaron but that is as far as it goes. So Anderson settled for a commitment to an asylum. The Jews involved responded about the way Anderson figured Jews would, so he reconciled himself to accepting the situation. NONE of them gave up one of their number to Gentile justice.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
Mr. Norder,
In her message of June 14, 2004, 3: 27 pm, Ms. Jennifer Pegg made an interesting comment that I believe speaks to heart of your inability to deal with the subtleties of Radka's summary. Jennifer wrote: "I still am not sure what quoting sociologists has to do with the theory A?R????????". I've glanced through all of your messages on this topic, and found that they have one thing in common, i.e., you consistently state your opinions with such an authority, that it would lead one to believe that your views represent the norms of the social sciences. A close reading, however, reveals that you don't fully understand how sociology, anthropology, and psychology are interrelated, or how they relate to the scientific method. Tell me something Mr. Norder. What, in your opinion, do these three epistemologies contribute to the system of social science? I'm curious to know your thoughts on this matter.
Frankly, I don't expect you to answer. Pride normally makes one reluctant to publicly acknowledge their lack of understanding.
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
1.”Why bother copywriting your responses, Mr. Radka?”
>>Boilerplate; I was advised to do so by an attorney. I’m doing what I was told, trying to be a good boy.
2.“I also asked if he knew who John Taylor was.”
>>No, but I appreciate your story of him. I don’t think Francis had a bad fate at all, as you describe it. He mastered the evidence, didn’t he? Isn’t mastery the real goal of right-thinking people?
3.“You actually think that a sociopath or psychopath
(however you classify Jack) would risk everything to leave knick marks and cuts and dismemberment marks on his victims as a "code" for a tailor to follow?!”
>>No, for Levy, Lawende and Harris to follow. He is at this point pushing his sucking mouth through Levy’s flesh, achieving parasitic infestation as do all psychopaths. Remember, if he’s Woolf Abrahams he is a tailor, and use of these symbols would occur to him naturally; plus coincide with the tailor’s meeting at the Imperial Club; plus possibly help confirm his identify to Levy, who if he knew him would know he were a tailor. Plus, it was probably also perversely fun to use tailoring symbols under those circumstances—he’d be performing “alterations” on the body, not the clothing.
4.“I have been pondering that one for weeks. I keep thinking of the surviving photos of Mary, Annie, Catherine, Liz, and poor Mary Jane, and try to imagine anybody killing those ladies (four of whom were on the street) with the intention of sending a message to a relative as a threat - and a male relative at that...not a female one! George S. Kaufman once summarized his dislike of "message" uplift drama by saying, "If you want a message, use Western Union." Well Western Union was not in England in 1888, but it's British opposite numbers existed. If Jack wanted to threaten a relative he'd take the relative aside and threaten him. It would be far more affective than to mark up the bodies of five victims ( disemboweling several of them)to warn off a cousin by hoping the cousin could read his "tailor" symbols.”
>>The psychopath has immense confidence in his effectiveness. I agree his communications really are foolishly ineffective, but he wouldn’t have thought so! The very pomposity of the plot is further evidence of a psychopath at work. You and I live in the real world, where we have to worry about our exchangeableness with respect to others and our relative place with them in the community. He doesn’t—the world is his oyster. Plus, as of Mitre Square he doesn’t know for sure if Levy recognized him or not. He only learns this later by reading of Levy’s evasiveness in the paper. If Levy didn’t recognize him, then by going directly to Levy to intimidate him he might in effect be unnecessarily confessing that he is JtR to him—so he doesn’t do that. He’s not stupid—he’s psychopathic.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
“It's rather silly for you to now reply to an old post of mine and ask me to respond with something that I already did several weeks ago.”
>>No, Mr. Norder, you never responded. I still have no idea what you are talking about.
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
Mr Radka you wrote.
"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."
You also wrote.
"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,"
Well there's something I'd like to ask you.
It seems to me as if you are the one fooling around with words.
What if "Juwes" is not a contraction of any word(hence no reference can be found of the word "Juwes"). What if "Juwes" is a misspelling of the word "Jews", and refers to Jewish people?
Misspelling, or a play on the word Jews? It can only be one or the other.
Which of the two is reality?
The fact that you yourself can find no reference to the word, "Juwes", (and I'd liked to bet that you have had a damned good look), seems to point to the fact that the word "Juwes", has never existed, and is a misspelling of "Jews".
Also what evidence do you have that JTR even wrote the graffiti in Goulston Street?
Regards Cludgy |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 10:16 pm: | |
Hi David,
Just because I'm obviously stoopid ;-) and to prove I read your posts.
You replied when I asked about the idea of JtR "panicking" after being seen and then writing the graffito when he could have taken other perhaps more or less risky options:
To quote:
>>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?
Ahem, You are here to explain what "he" did.
Let us follow that through shall we, walk with me a while David....
The case evidence isn't that "he" had no chalk with him is it?
The case evidence isn't that "he" is implicating Aaron or anyone actually is it?
The case evidence isn't "he" didn't plan the message is it?
The case evidence isn't the message wasn't writen before the murder rather than after is it?
The case evidence isn't "he" was known to Levey who then kept quiet is it?
The case evidence isn't that Juwe = Jew (you yourself wanted Juwe to mean something else I do recall) is it?
Now we've walked a bit David... try reading them again and try to be impartial this time, try freeing your mind, open it a bit maybe, be playfull if you wish.
Where is your case evidence for all these David?
Can you justify or substantiate anything you said in that reply David.
The case evidence is graffito was written in chalk and included the term Juwe (fullstop, nothing else, period), the case evidence doesn't even indicate JtR wrote the graffitus, only that it was on the wall where the bloodied apron was found.
Anything beyond that is pure speculation on your or anyone else's part, ie that he had no chalk, he was implicating someone or warning someone, that the message wasn't planned, Juwe=Jew, etc.
You have convinced yourself you are right haven't you David?
Your _interpretation_ of case evidence in your
mind _is_ the case evidence.
It's a tortology to say you explain what he did when we don't know what exactly he did, perhaps by you explaining what he did we will know what he did? Wow, like my head, it's spinning, this is soo heavy maan.
When you say, to quote:
I’m only here to explain what he did, not what he ought to have done!!
perhaps you meant to type:
I’m only here to explain what he did, _and_ what he ought to have done!!
For if JtR didn't write the graffito you've explained exactly why he _should_ and _ought_ to have!
Anyway, interesting that you say the graffito is now there to implicate Aaron - I thought it was a warning for Levy, perhaps it is all things to all men.
I've lost track of what you think the graffito signifies these days, yesterday Juwe=Jugendwerk, today Juwe=Jew, tomorrow, who knows.}
Cheerio,
ian
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
1.“David-- a man can rave in Hyde Park in the rain all he wants, and it's really none of my business. But I thought I might point out just one last time the sad, hard fact that Criminal Law is all about good ol' fashioned British Empiricism. And that, of course, is entirely a good thing coz' no criminal case is going to be announced 'solved' unless you can find something to put into your briefcase.
>>It is hard to explain to you, because your mind is crystallized into a certain shape on this issue, and you are set in your way. What I would like to be able to do is teach you how to somehow blink your eyes, so that you could see a geometric figure a different way than you have for so long accustomed yourself. Imagine a simple line drawing of a rectangular three-dimensional figure. When you first encounter it, your mind automatically resolves it into a perspective for you, so by your perspective you seem to be looking down on the top of it from the right. But then if you turn and blink your eyes, when encountering it the second time it seems you are looking up at the bottom of it, also from the right. Can you imagine this? It is my job to teach Ripperologists to do this kind of thing concerning the case evidence. The way I imagine you, you think I’m trying to do a hellacious disservice to the case, to empiricism, etc., but I’m not. I’m not trying to convict a man and send him to the gallows without empirical evidence. I’m attempting to solve the case for the evidence. I’m trying to line up my perspectives on the evidence based on the best possible, most critically estimable schematism, and then let it point to whatever solution may be implicit in it. I’m then going to say: “This is what the evidence means.” Nobody is going to be hanged. My technique might perhaps be used by a law enforcement agency to solve a case, but it would be rather dicey to get a jury to convict on it under some circumstances, and I wouldn’t want it to be used to argue in court under some circumstances. It would depend on the case. Juries are held more to hard evidence than readers of books about murder cases.
2.“Take, for instance, this enjoyable fantasy you weave about the alleged identification by Levy. Not only are you unable to produce any documentation for it ---and not only does it contradict Levy's own sworn testimony--- but the scenerio clearly doesn't even fit the spirit of Anderson's statement. (Rosey already tried to point that out to you)
Let me put it this way. The jury is hearing Anderson complain about the 'curious fact' that 'certain low-class' types don't turn over their own...yet...hey, they're suppose to turn around and believe you when you suggest that Anderson is describing an event where the Jewish chap waltzes into the offices of the Met and delivers Jack the Ripper's head on a platter? It's not credible, it's not consistant, and it doesn't fit the spirit of the statement. Anderson would not have described the 'event' in the mealy-mouthed way that he did if it went down the way you claim.”
>>Levy’s sworn testimony is what he said he saw, not necessarily what he did see. There was no way for anybody to verify what the man did or didn’t see. If I am correct, Levy was facing unbearable pressure to lie when he did, the fate of the Jewish people in his very hands, as he saw it. How do you figure Levy delivered JtR’s head on a platter? I think he protected Aaron and the rest of the Jewish people as best he could. The best thing for Aaron, considering his condition, was permanent confinement in an institution, and that’s what Levy got for him. The real JtR was protected, not turned in, and what Levy must have felt would be a catastrophic assault on the Jews of Whitechapel by the gentile was thus avoided. JtR was restored to a position of primacy in his home, Aaron being gone, and thereafter he killed no more, and thus the Jewish people were protected from gentile retaliation should he be caught at a crime scene. By taking Aaron away from JtR, JtR no longer had a project concerning Levy—he would have to stop trying to push him to turn in Aaron to try to get some of the reward, or just to complete his original project and have his triumph. This scenario is in fact credible and consistent with a Jewish man’s desire to protect his friends, his people, and to extricate himself from the depredations of a bloodsucker. Further, there is room within it for Levy to convincingly display to Anderson all the attributes of a Jew Anderson would expect to see. He would want to turn in the Jewish murderer to get him off the streets so he wouldn’t expose the Jewish people to a pogrom by killing more, and he wouldn’t want the death of a fellow Jew at the hands of the gentile on his conscience. What does Rosey have to do with this? I get no sense at all out of anything he writes. Anderson described the event the way he did to keep everyone—including himself—protected and under wraps. I don’t know what you mean by “mealy-mouthed.”
3.“You're also going to have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better way of dealing with Aaron Kosminski, because you've turned him into a hat rack. It painfully obvious that Anderson, Macnaghten, and Sims were all describing the same suspect. There were 'many circs.' connected with Kosminski--- remember? A hairdresser from Mother Poland in those days was a barber-surgeon. His family worked the night shift which is why Anderson (and Sims) stated that he could come & go when he pleased. So the true & correct perspective is that Kosminski was an established police suspect and the botched identification that Anderson is describing was subsequent to that suspicion. Seen in the correct perspective, your psychopathically harrassed Levy is wanton fanatasy.”
>>No evidence indicates Aaron’s family “worked the night shift.” There is no evidentiary reason to believe that Aaron attracted the attention of the police in and of his own and became a suspect that way. He may or may not have. He could have simply been turned in by Levy. Your “perspective” is incorrect. Whatever information McNaghten may have had about Aaron could have been baloney told to Anderson by JtR and then retold to McNaghten by Anderson. Don’t be so sure Aaron was a hairdresser/barber-surgeon either. Many people committed to institutions were described thus, along with “shoe shiner,” probably because many Polish Jews were observed working this way. Maybe Aaron simply did not work. JtR himself may have told Anderson that Aaron was a hairdresser/barber-surgeon just to fit him up for having “anatomical knowledge,” a point of conviction in this case at the time.
4. "When the man whom we suspected...'
>>Words out of context.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
Hi David,
Ahh, how I've missed all this banter and idle chit-chat the last few weeks... but to your credit David you are picking up old questions as you promised from the start.
The whole thing with the Lusk letter... why a Jew would use an Irish spoken accent in a written letter you now explain perfectly.
You now introduce the reason he used an Irish spoken accent in the letter... and that is for theatrics and to make it sound from "the dark side" and be more dramatic/persuassive?
So Lusk wouldn't be afeerd of a mere human kidney received in the post attached to a simple English threatening letter; it would need a theatric fake spoken Irish accent to make him _really_ worried?
Errr, maybe I'm just a bit of a sissy, but, I think I'd be sh*tt*ng in my pants if it were Irish, Scottish, Cockney, English, Jewish or Swahili spoken accent in the letter if it were addressed to me (so he knows my address) and had a human kidney accompanying it.
Yeah right... and your answer will be... ian thinks a while... scratches his head... adjusts himself... ponders _real_ deeply... oh yes... of course... it doesn't make a difference what you or I think on whether this makes any sense... he is a psychopath after all...
OK a better answer woud be that if I received the letter how could I tell it was a *human* kidney and not a cow or a horse or a kanga-bleeding-roo so the Irish slant would possibly get my attention if it is a normal device used in plays of the time.
And my answer would be he's a psychopath so is extremenly confident that I _will_ know it's a human kidney as that is what he wants me to believe. Why does someone so confident need to gild the lilly.
And you reply he needs to gild the lilly because he's a psychopath and they always do embroider and go over the top...
And my response is a hoaxer would want to pile effect upon effect and we have no real reason to even assume the letter is/was real evidence at all.
Plus he knows Lusk won't fund the reward money personally so why even bother with the middle man, psychopaths aren't stupid, so send it to the organ grinder and not the monkey.
He doesn't even suggest or hint at raising the reward in the letter, to me it's obvious he's sending it to the vigilante group to back off and stand down or else they get it next; perhaps they got too close one night (if the letter were real).
And you reply... errr. he's a pschopath and so doesn't need to mention an interest in increasing the reward as he knows the message will be understood even if not written explicitly.
And the cycle goes on... and on... and on...
Cheerio,
ian
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 11:49 am: | |
Mephisto-- Reflect on the following statement:
>>"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." --David Radka.
And, if you will, this:
>>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." David Radka
Ahem. Now my commentary.
In relation to the first statement:
Several years ago the science writer Martin Gardner wrote about a brilliant Islamic mathematician who came up with a new model of the Universe. In the model, we lived inside the earth, which was a largish self-contained globe. (Stay with me; this is not an attempt at humor). In the model, the movements of the sun, moon, and planets were fully explained, the math was completely valid, and so on. The startling fact is that the Islamic mathematician's model was ultimately irrefutable.
Another example. Back in the Victorian age a bloke named Philip Gosse wrote a book called Omphalos. Gosse was one of those earnest Victorian gentlemen who were profoundly disturbed by the implications of Darwin's theory. He spent a great deal of time meditating on the fact that Adam & Eve had navels, and one day came to the sudden realization that these navels were a 'record' of an event that never happened, the vestiges of umbilical cords that never were. Gosse then went on to realize that the entire fossil record was part of God's creation, nothing more than a similar 'record' of a geologic history that never actually took place.
Now, I think you would be hard pressed to find a Biologist who accepts Gosse, but, once again, his bizarre theory is fundamentally sound and can't really be refuted. Indeed, Bertrand Russel used Gosse to illustrate "epistomological principles."
In your above response to me, you spend a good deal of time discussing the argument between Messrs. Norder & Radka concerning the definition of psychopathology. Alas, my fine fellow, this is neither here nor there in relation to my criticism of Radka; it's like pointing out that Gosse and Darwin disagreed on the wing-span of the archeopteryx; or that Carl Sagan might have fought with the Islamic mathematican about the shape of one of Saturn's moons. These discussions have no bearing on the legitimacy of Radka's method, nor do they have anything to do with my fundamental criticism.
Radka states that his theory is 100% internally consistant and %100 'follows' the case evidence.
I say, "so what?" So do the theories of Gosse.
Radka has created a closed system. Fantasic. But this tells us nothing whatsoever about its relationship to the reality of what happened in 1888-1894.
Is A?R really in the 'scientific traditon' like you claim? I suspect that it isn't. Radka elsewhere has mentioned his personal ideologies and beliefs, and I suspect that by embracing the Idealism of the Bishop Berkeley sort, he might, at the heart, be revealing that he really isn't pitching his tent in your camp. To me, he is more in the traditon of Gosse. You await his full thesis, impressed by how he has arranged the tea cups neatly around a shimmering tea kettle. But I fear that you haven't yet grasped the fact that has no intention of pouring you any tea.
Why? Note again Radka's second statement.
I define a series of such oppositions in the Thesis. This ultimately justifies my epistemological center by the completeness of my analysis of the case evidence."
Justifies? Nonsense.
This is not the scientific method. Radka's "solution" is merely a subtle restatement of the original hypothesis. It's viciously circular. His hypothesis is that there is a 'center' in the case evidence (the murders of Stride, Kelly, etc. are related to the Lusk kidney, the Hove event, etc.). All well and good. BUT HIS SOLUTION IS DETERMINED ("utimately justified" as he puts it) BY THE COMPLETENESS OF THE ANALYSIS. In other words, the "wholeness" of his dissertation demonstrates the validity of the original thesis that there was wholeness. Wholeness=wholeness. It's like one of those invalid science projects that everyone's heard about where the apparatus of the hypothesis and the subsequent experimental methods are subtly predetermined by the original bias.
Note carefully: it is neither scientific nor rational nor philosophical to assume that a 'fragmented' view of the case is intrinsically inferior to a 'holistic' one--but Radka's idea of a solution predetermines that he will come to this very conclusion. It's why I call it aesthetic. By way of illustration, the reality could be that Kidney killed Stride; that Rosslyn D'Onston, that weirdo extraordinaire, sent the kidney to Lusk; that a local antisemite, still miffed over the Pizer affair chalked up the Goulston Street message on the wall, and so on. Radka calls this 'chaos', but all that statement does is to illustrate that he has stacked the deck from the get-go by his very definition of what constitutes a solution. See?
RP
Source: "Hermit Scientists" by Martin Gardner. Antioch Review, Winter 1950-51. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Hi (OK I Know)
Joseph - much easier to spell.
I have just realised you can't email me bcos our profiles no longer have email addresses. I don't want you to think badly of me(that was an error on my part)an email address i don't mind giving out is jennipegg@yahoo.co.uk
Jennifer
Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times.....
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 154
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:59 pm: | |
To respond to Mephisto's tirade:
"And as far as insults are concerned, the only person insulting anyone here is you."
That's a rather unique spin on things. I'll let other people be the judge of that, if you don't mind.
"Do you think that simply because you label an argument "absurd" or "bizarre" that these folks are just going to suspend their judgment, and accept your definitions without question?"
Of course not. I suggest people go investigate the topics being brought up so they can see for themselves how far from reality these statements you and David have been saying are.
"Are we supposed to believe that you did independent research 'to try to support your stance in an online argument'"
David claims that the killer used a form of the word Juwe to mean the same thing that a modern group uses it for. So I emailed them. They said that word was not created until the 1960s. Other people here have said the same thing based upon their research. This now means we have multiple sources confirming that the word couldn't have been used the way David claims, to no sources from David supporting it's existence prior to the last half of the 20th century. Hence the reasonable conclusion here is that the only way Jack the Ripper could have meant the Graffito to mean what David insists it does is if he was familiar with a term that wasn't invented until seven decades later. This is clearly impossible.
You claim to have personally phoned up about 20 professional psychotherapists out of the blue to ask a multi-question poll and report back that they supposedly claim the American Psychological Association doesn't know what they are talking about, and then somehow you try to use this to say that what they and every other professional source that contradicts what your friend (an accountant with no training in psychology) says about psychopathy must be discounted, so David must be correct after all. You provided alleged comments from a handful of people with inferior credentials to the professionals who create the DSM and somehow expect that to mean that David's definition of psychopathy means something other than what the rest of the world uses it for. You could have asked them about psychopathy (assuming you really did ask anyone at all and that they had any background in that area), but you didn't.
These two situations are not even comparable. For you to suggest they are is ridiculous.
"This statement is false and misleading for two reasons: 1) you purposely misstated my argument, and 2) you tried to obscure the unreliability of the DSM."
I didn't mistake your argument, and I am not obscuring the controversy over the DSM because you vastly overstate it, and, more importantly, it's completely irrelevant to this debate.
Even the people who don't think the DSM's criteria for determining psychopathy is the best way to do things have specific criteria of their own for the purpose, which in every case I've seen contradicts David's beliefs on the matter.
You quote me pointing out that the APA's DSM and Dr. Hare's PCL-R checklist both prove David wrong, and then you restrict your counterargument to blowing some complaints about the DSM out of proportion...
...ignoring the fact that Dr. Hare, considered the world's foremost expert on psychopaths (and someone David initially claimed as one of his sources), does not use the DSM and his PC-L (and other statments) still says that, contrary to what David claims, psychopaths are marked by extreme anger as a major identifying trait, while David claims they are incapable of it.
"Norder, the fact of the matter is, you touted the DSM as the mainstay diagnostic instrument of the APA."
And, in fact, it is. Some people don't like it, especially people not in the United States (it is the *American* Psychological Association, after all), but it is the primary diagnostic reference for mental health. If, as you imply, it is *not* the "mainstay diagnostic instrument of the APA", please tell us what is.
"In any event, it doesn't take the wisdom of Socrates to conclude that somewhere during your education in psychology, it became known to you
that the DSM manuals were troubled by major controversies, but you purposely chose not to mention that."
I've fully admitted there are controversies, you just seem to think they are more severe than I do. But these controversies have nothing at all to do with anything that impacts David's false claims about what psychopaths are like.
"Anyone with any respect for the Casebook's readership would have mentioned the fact that the DSM program was problematic from its inception."
Newsflash for you: everything everywhere has people complaining about aspects of it. As the complaints were not related to the topic, I don't feel the need to bring them up.
If I were to mention the fact that the moon was full on certain dates during the Autumn of Terror, would you come along later and insult my motives, ethics, and so forth because I didn't mention that fact that some people argue about the exact percentages of certain elements of the moon's composition, or that some people even claim that the moon landings were hoaxed or that it's made of green cheese? Because that's roughly comparable to the strategy you have attempted to pull here.
"You wrote: "No, the problem here is that I have extensive training and education in the field, and what you are saying that psychopaths do and do not do is in some ways completely opposite of how they are really like" (Norder: May 15, 2004, 2:36pm). No Norder, the problem here is it was completely opposite of what you were saying."
I'm sorry, but you are wrong here. Your tirade said nothing about what psychopaths are like, only that you think the DSM should be ignored. Fine, ignore the DSM. Dr. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (created specifically to be what he sees as a better tool than the DSM for this one diagnosis) directly contradicts David.
If you try to toss that out too, there is a line of thousands more people with actual professional credentials in the field saying the complete opposite of what David claims.
"You are demanding something from Radka's summary that the summary isn't claiming."
All I am demanding is that the points he lists as facts actually be facts. But then he has stated his disdain for fact-based Ripperology, so I guess that's a hopeless expectation.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 155
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 12:13 am: | |
Mephisto continued in a later post:
"Ms. Jennifer Pegg made an interesting comment that I believe speaks to heart of your inability to deal with the subtleties of Radka's summary."
How on earth does her questioning your longwinded discussion of unrelated points about sociology several posts back have anything to do with me?
"I've glanced through all of your messages on this topic, and found that they have one thing in common, i.e., you consistently state your opinions with such an authority, that it would lead one to believe that your views represent the norms of the social sciences."
And they are, to the extent of my knowledge, which is better than average. Other people here with backgrounds in those fields have said the same sorts of things, several of them directly pointing out the same specific problems with David's beliefs that I do (and which he repeatedly insists he never saw, somehow).
And, in any case, I point to professional sources to back up my statements, so it's not like I'm expecting people to just take my word on these things.
"A close reading, however, reveals that you don't fully understand how sociology, anthropology, and psychology are interrelated, or how they relate to the scientific method."
That's your opinion, but then your opinion on the matter isn't something I worry about.
"Tell me something Mr. Norder. What, in your opinion, do these three epistemologies contribute to the system of social science? I'm curious to know your thoughts on this matter."
Why is that you and David insist that your critics respond with huge essays about basic concepts you should already know the answers to if you actually knew what you were talking about? You claim you had college classes in these fields, pull out your old textbooks, if you still have them.
I mean, honestly, why do you care? You just want to try to draw me into some pointless argument about something else entirely to get away from the fact that David has been proven wrong on key elements of his theory and that both of you refuse to acknowledge that.
"Frankly, I don't expect you to answer. Pride normally makes one reluctant to publicly acknowledge their lack of understanding."
No, actually, pride normally makes one rant and rave about bizarre unrelated topics and ignore logical debate about a topic -- as you and David have more than adequately pointed out several times on this thread.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 156
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 12:43 am: | |
And, David says pretty much the same as always:
"No, Mr. Norder, you never responded. I still have no idea what you are talking about."
I've responded several times, very clearly pointing out specifics. "Mephisto" even quoted some of them for you.
"Contradict where? What points?"
New psych term for you: "Living in denial."
"Why do you keep ignoring my request to be specific?"
Why do you keep ignoring the specifics that were posted?
"I still have no idea what you are talking about concerning the alleged outmodedness of my research."
Most of it isn't "outmodedness" but straight out inaccuracies. It's not a question of what you are saying having been thought to be correct at one point in the past, it's you being completely out in the ether.
"No clue whatever."
Come on, I know you aren't that clueless.
"I hope for your sake you’re not hoping to spring a Donald McCormick on me."
How could already having given you specifics and sources several times over count as pulling a Donald McCormick? And that seems like a pretty strange accusation from someone who, with "Mephisto" jumping in now and then, has been trying to pull a Joe McCarthy.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
(John Omlor wrote) “Just as there's not really anything "epistemological" about David's "epistemological center," there's nothing very Platonic, and certainly nothing having to do with the category of forms to be found in any of this.”
>>Before specifically responding to Mr. Omlor here, I feel a matter must be mentioned regarding his participation. First, he’s a deconstruction-oriented academic, generally opposed to the epistemological tradition found in the last 2,500 years of western philosophy. This is a major factor in academe’ today. The epistemological-deconstructionist opposition has been hotly debated, bitterly contested, and many academic careers have been gained and lost in the balance. Many fields are involved in the arts and sciences, and elsewhere. Mr. Omlor and myself have been mentored or taught by two of the foremost and most sharply opposed players, he by the deconstructionist Jacques Derrida and I by the epistemologist Stanley Rosen. When I began A?R, I used the term “epistemological center” in part to indicate the theory’s inflection on this matter. Make no mistake; John Omlor is on this thread because of my choice of this term. If he writes true to form, what he will do is attempt to show the inefficacy of epistemology in his criticisms of the A?R theory.
>>>Well, I suppose from your perspective, Mr. Omlor, there’s not really anything effectively epistemological about anything, even about epistemology itself. But if you’d like to make a specific criticism of my work, I’d be willing to consider it here.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
1.Mr. Palmer: "Personally, I am left with the same misgivings I've always had when hearing Mr. Radka discuss his methodology.." Well, why is that so Palmer? "It seems to me that the center---that the killer is a psychopath--is far too soft and mushy to allow anyone to confidently identify what consistutes the actual 'case evidence'". Huh? Your gift for clarity is almost as underwhelming as your value of objectivity."
Yes, Mephisto. But let's face it. All hope for 'clarity' is lost once Radka has pitched us into the mire of metaphysics. 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:
Mr. Radka: "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)
Mr. Palmer: And you call me vague?? Cleckly has joined hands with Hegel, Anderson, and Hazelwood and has gone-a-profilin'.”
>>Please allow me to respectfully join this excellent discussion between Mephisto and Mr. Palmer. This is a good question, albeit no one need have any misgivings concerning how the center determines the case evidence. The Summary doesn’t discuss the matter, because I didn’t consider it an issue regarding how the theory is summarized, but perhaps I should have. The way the center establishes what is or is not the case evidence is by questioning the written histories of the case concerning what dynamically logical oppositions may be found in it related to the issues of psychopathy. When such an opposition is found an attempt is made to analyze both sides of it. If both sides can be analyzed phenomenologically, then we provisionally consider ourselves to be “on the right track,” and we proceed to take the former analysis as the synthesis for the succeeding logical opposition, following the evidence. We proceed through all the written histories of the case this way. If we can keep going, and if we analyze all the way to a satisfactory conclusion, and if all the analyses taken as a whole are satisfactory in light of the nature of psychopathy, then we know we’re done. This is the tissue of how everything is held together logically. This method may not require some evidentiary pieces that nevertheless may have been part of the murder series; these would be considered adventitious actions of the murderer or other dramatis personae not essentially connected to the pathology in question. And the method would help identify certain other historical accounts as evidentiary pieces that may not have been generally accepted as such before, such as the Tabram case, the cessation, the identification, Levy, etc. So that’s basically how it’s done. We know what to look for—issues of psychopathic pathology—and then we use two-sided phenomenological analysis to get a wholeness part-by-part. We stick close to the histories and work toward a greater wholeness where all the parts and the center mutually oppose satisfactorily. We don’t know we’re done until we get there.
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.' 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. Am I missing something? Is there a missing step or two somewhere here? Where is the connecting tissue?”
>>The connecting engine is the Ripperlogical thinker asking questions; the connecting tissue is the content and results of those questions.
3. “I'll grant you that Radka has chosen a canon of what he calls the 'evidence' from the known history of the Whitechapel Murders (and it's worth remembering that it's only the known history) and has weaved it into an internally consistant story. But is he not claiming a wee bit more than this? One can understand (but not necessarily agree with) what he means by 'logical confirmation' of the various bits of evidence buzzing around the same story-line. A bloke can grab hold of a copy of Aristotle's Poetics and give a whirl at unity of time, place, and action. Well done---I don't disagree with the motivation. But what is this nonsense about a diagnosis per Cleckley absolutely identifying and even verifying the validity of the so-called evidence? This is crawling into a nutshell and announcing onceself the king of infinite space...”
>>We’re not talking about infinite space, just the finite space required for a logical solution to the Whitechapel murders. This space is circumscribed by our critical work in choosing the center, asking the questions, and determining satisfaction. We let the process determine what it needs and doesn’t need as it goes along. It makes a place for itself within the histories. A solution may require less than you think, Ripperologists never having been able to appreciate what they had before them.
4.“How precisely does Cleckley help determine that Stride was a victim of the man who killed Chapman?”
>>Cleckley himself states his opinion in “The Mask of Sanity,” based upon his general review of the case, that JtR was a psychopath. He gets this from the murder series taken as a whole, not from the Annie Chapman crime taken in isolation. And I do the same. I ask: “What kind of person would do all these things?” The rest is unpacked from this question.
5. “P.S. Am I wrong, or do I seem to discern a certain New York state of mind? :-)”
>>I consider it a rather meditative philosophical state of mind.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
{Quick look-in post, out of order. I will address this matter more fully when I return.}
"...it is neither scientific nor rational nor philosophical to assume that a 'fragmented' view of the case is intrinsically inferior to a 'holistic' one--but Radka's idea of a solution predetermines that he will come to this very conclusion."
>>Forgive me Mr. Palmer, but I thought all things that human beings understand, or think they understand, are understood by their subsuming details under a general idea. Therefore a fragmented view of the case is not merely intrinsically inferior to a holistic one, it is no view or understanding of the case of any kind. If the Whitechapel murders are ever to be understood, then they can only be understood as an example of some X. Whenever any murder case is understood, it is understood by some root cause or another. When I start out theorizing concerning this case I don't know what X is, but I do know if I am to ever understand, I will understand some X. So I try various Xs, getting better and better at ballparking X until I feel I can maybe subsume all the case evidence under my best X yet. Then I go ahead and try. If I can't satisfyingly and exhaustively do so, then I know my X was wrong, and I try a different X. What is intrinsically wrong with this method?
Mr. Palmer as a sophist has a soft spot in his heart for chaos, fragments, pieces and shards. He needs chaos so he can bend and shape it to pursue his various interests in society and be succesful, he thinks. When he's done shaping it one way for his dealings with Sam, he'll shape it another way for his dealings with Sheila.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Dear Friends,
Unfortunately, it is time once again for me to be away from the Message Boards for one week. I will have no access to my PC from June 28 to July 2, and the next time I will be able to respond to posts will be Saturday, July 3. I wish I could be here with you all.
I didn't want to respond directly to Mephisto until I had determined exactly who he was. I knew he was a former excellent poster, but couldn't be sure which one of several we had a few years back he was. Scott Nelson and I worked together, and we determined his identity with 100% certainty. It will not be revealed to anyone as long as he wishes to post anonymously here. Mephisto, I would like to offer my sincere thanks for your usual clear and bright thinking, and distinguished logical work. You are even better than you used to be, and I would think you must have excellent future prospects. I will be responding more directly to you when I come back.
Until then, may God bless you all.
David
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 5:00 pm: | |
"As a Sophist..."
Come, come; it's getting a bit stale. As a Solipsist it's fairly clear that you haven't answerd my objection; viz. the necessity of Empiricism. (As a philosopher, it's also a bit embarrassing for you to resort to ridiculous & inaccurate deflections rather than respond to a well-stated critique). The funny thing is that I actually believe that it is you who open yourself up to the accusation of relativity and solipsism with this gibberish about 'logical satifaction.' Let me understand you. Tell me (this is a serious question) how might you determine that your 'logical satisfaction' isn't merely in your own head, as per Mr. Longman's suggestion? Or are you, in fact, endorsing a type of solipsism?
If you aren't, then you still haven't made a coherent answer to the circularity that I've revealed in your method. If a man hits a golf ball and a tree falls over in the next fairway, it's not intellectually "superior" to see a connection between the two events. Your method has an inescapable bias. One might argue that the 'connecting tissue' between Stride, Eddowes, the Lusk Kidney, etc., might merely be the workings of the London Press or the general hysteria in the East End in response to the murders or a false emphasis they have in secondary sources. The Lusk kidney could be D'Onston getting in on the act with an anatomical specimen copped from the London Hosipital. I am not saying you need to agree with this. It's certainly "o.k." for you to theorize along different lines; heck, I can even appreciate your wishing to throw in everything including the smoke from Kelly's chiminey. What I am arguing it that it's not o.k. for you to claim your theory is somehow mystically transformed into reality by some ill defined term such as "logical satisfaction" at the "holism". Define your terms. What do you mean by "logical satisfaction"? (Throwing around loaded words like "chaos" and "shards" doesn't answer the objection). (I'd like to hear Mephisto's thoughts on this one).
But I don't wish to flog a dead horse. I've stated my objection, and I'll accept your next response as your final statement on the matter. RP
PS. "I didn't want to respond directly to Mephisto until I had determined exactly who he was....'
It's funny that a guy of my intellectual inferiority beat you to the punch on this one, no? The next time you're stumped, let me know ... :-)
(Message edited by rjpalmer on July 03, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
David Radka writes:
"Before specifically responding to Mr. Omlor here, I feel a matter must be mentioned regarding his participation. First, he’s a deconstruction-oriented academic, generally opposed to the epistemological tradition found in the last 2,500 years of western philosophy. This is a major factor in academe’ today."
Bullshit, David.
(Please pardon my language everyone, but what you just read above was pure crap.)
First of all, nothing I said about the faux-philosophy and the unnecessarily complicated rhetoric and the nonsense about British people being cold and unfeeling that I read here had anything to do with deconstruction.
And second of all, David should know (unless he's been lied to or badly taught) that deconstruction and the work of Professor Derrida has never opposed itself to the epistemological tradition at all. Derrida has said precisely this over and over again. In his interview in the JAC he makes exactly this point repeatedly, for instance. Certainly, it has sought always to read this tradition carefully and with great love and patience and to say yes to it and thoroughly and meticulously to examine and interrogate its founding assumptions, both explicit and implicit. But it has never "OPPOSED" itself to it. Not at all. That would be exactly the sort of shallow and easy operation that deconstruction rigorously works against. Either Mr. Radka has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to this subject or he's never carefully read Professor Derrida's work or he's just blowing more smoke up everyone's ass here.
I know which possibility I now favor as the most likely one.
Shaking his head in disbelief at the irrelevant silliness,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on July 03, 2004) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 5:57 pm: | |
“Most of the people posting here have no idea, I think, what sophistry is, and what an extreme sort of guy you are for advocating it, Mr. Palmer. It is essentially anti-civilzation, anti-truth, anti-science, anti-everything.” --David Radka, April 2, 2004.
And perhaps a few here might not have heard much about Solipsism. While Mr. Radka is certainly within his rights to endorse it, one might point out just what an extreme philosophy it can be. The true Solipist believes that there is no objective reality outside his own mind, or, at least not one that he can 'know.' In the extreme form, he might even believe that only he exists, refusing to accept the reality of walls, chairs, stones, etc... (Usually this sort of philosopher can only be found in Colney Hatch). A careful reading of Radka’s theory reveals that he doesn't believe any historical 'solution' is dependent on Empirical "evidence"---indeed, he holds such notions in contempt. It is revealing that Radka argues that a "solution" to the case is determined by obtaining a certain mental state, ie., what he calls "logical satisfaction."
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
ALLY, PLEASE READ THIS
Ally wrote: “David is not attempting to establish if p then q because that is the kind of logic based thinking that he supposedly despises. Plus, in order for that sort of reasoning to work, p must be a fact in order for a q to be a fact. I have several times asked Radka for proof that his "p" is fact in order to claim his "q" and he has said time and time again that this is the kind of shoddy thinking that has ruined Ripperology.”
>>My response: Ally, the way the logic works is one thing, what the logic works directly on is another. There aren’t enough facts for the case to be solved “if p, then q” on the facts alone and directly, so we have to take a different and more complex tack. If the case could be solved on the facts alone, it would have been solved years ago. However we can still use “if p, then q” though in order to have a logical theory, and we can still have all the facts of the case available for us to use.
The way this works is that we have two parallel universes of “if p, then q.” One is inside the epistemological center; the other has to do with the empirical evidence. First we make as critical a determination as possible of what the epistemological center of the case should be, based on a general review of the evidence, asking questions, and a search of all reasonable possibilities for a center. Then for any local argument we may wish to raise in the evidence concerning the actions of the murderer “if p’, then q’,” we must also be able to justify it in the center as “if p, then q.” If the two were in balance, then we would have a tentatively justified local argument concerning psychopathy in the evidence. The center thus restrains and helps guide logical evaluation of the chronology of the empirical evidence. Thus in our comprehensive theory of the case, nothing is done by the psychopath in the case evidence that is inconsistent with the psychopathic personality as elucidated in the psychiatric literature. And then at the conclusion of analysis of all the case evidence, a second, similar evaluation is made of the center and all the case evidence taken as a whole. This reduces the entire case evidence of the Whitechapel murders to a typical case history of psychopathy, as found in the literature.
Honestly, in reflection of the above and all that has been written on this thread in the last 2 ½ months, it should have seemed obvious to someone that there are basically three ways I can be criticized on the theory that I have, and get on with it reasonably. Instead of spinning their gears on peripheral data such as whether or not the marks on Eddowes’ face are really tailor’s symbols, or if the contractions “Juwe” existed in German in 1888, people should have been inquiring into the following:
1.Are the controls to my subjectivity adequate? Basically A?R is a series of self-designed controls on the Ripperologist’s central nervous system. That central nervous system is going to take the evidence and attempt to analyze it to solve the case, but it has to know where to go, when what is timely or untimely, what kind of questions to ask, when to press harder and when to slow down, and so on. Nobody talks about this. The critiques are for the most part nut and bolt items. This doesn’t speak to the condition of the evidence or the case we make on it. When is somebody going to realize that we have to KNOW THE MAN to solve this case? When will someone come forward whom WANTS TO STUDY THE CASE IN TERMS OF HUMAN BEINGS? The inquiries we make have to be warm, deep, human and sensitive, not simplistically flat like “how far was it from where Stride laid to where Eddowes laid?” Can’t you understand that you’ve all been handcuffing yourselves for all these years with this kind of cr@p? Don’t you see how stupid it is? Don’t you know how to look into yourselves? Aren’t you able to make a reasonable change?
2.Have I pre-designed my take on the literature of psychopathy to merely reinforce what I wanted to say about the case evidence anyway? Have I custom-designed a psychopath to wear the clothes of JtR? If you think I’ve done so, speak right out of the literature of psychopathy, don’t quote lists or make obtuse guesses. Give your own detailed view of what a psychopath is, and show how it is different from mine.
3.Is my theory comprehensive of all the evidence? Does it adequately locate in time and space what the evidence is, what data is needed to solve the case and what isn’t? Is unused evidence left over that is important? Be specific.
A man like me needs competent critics, not kids to simply throw mud. I may even need to build my own critics if I am to have any.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 7:55 pm: | |
I'm rather suspicious about Mr. Omlor's presence on this thread. How do I know that Omlor is a physical reality and is not merely the figment of someone's fertile imagination? How do I know that I'm not being conned by the empirical evidence? It seems to me his only purpose here is thwart Mr. Radka. Yes. I rather suspect that Omlor is really an invention of one of Lubnowski's decendents, a transparent attempt to prevent Radka from exposing the truth. John Omlor and the manipulations of the psychopath are one and the same.
Copyright, 2004.
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 10:42 pm: | |
Hey RJ,
It's just me, from the epistemological center of the tootsie pop.
The funny thing is, David has me as some sort of wild decon bug man, when nothing I've written here has anything to do with such ideas and when, coincidentally, just this coming term I'll actually be teaching a very traditional course in, believe it or not, epistemology -- the text list: Plato, Descartes, Hume and Kant. All somehow opposed to the epistemological tradition, I guess.
In my humble opinion, David often seems to use philosophical rhetoric the way a whore uses make-up. In some way it's no doubt designed to attract and impress and in some way it's meant to cover up and hide what might be just plain and ordinary underneath, but eventually it just ends up being way too much and it results only in putting the reader off -- killing, that is, their desire.
Then again, perhaps your diagnosis is more accurate.
Perhaps we should all be whispering to poor Mr. Radka, in comforting tones, "Physician, heal thyself."
Still chuckling,
--John |
A Rusty Ol' Hound Dawg
Sergeant
Username: Burgho2004
Post Number: 24
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
This is all great stuff, folks. But, we all know by now that we're not going to to pin a name on the Whitechapel serial murderer. We also know that pinning names on criminals and surgically extracting them from the human gene pool does mean that there won't be another one, just like the other other one. We achieve no control of our collective fate by doing this.
The forensic science cockroaches which live in the walls of my garage are intrigued and baffled by the presence of a serial murderer in their midst. Sometimes the victims are inundated with an astonishing overkill of toxic chemicals. Sometimes, there is a shocking gore fest of body parts laid asunder with a "signiture" consistency which indicates the work of the same perpetrator, using the same device. Sometimes, they just disappear, leaving behind difficultly-detected residual evidence which indicates that the same serial murderer has been at work.
But, then again, these are the foolish children among them who go scuttling about on the Great Concrete Plain out in the open. They've been taught over and over again that this behavior invites premature death by at hand of The Boogeyman, but these hapless children have ignored the tribal wisdom and as such have invited the fates they have incurred. So, not much energy will be expended in an effort to discover and characterize the perpetrator of their deaths.
Same ol' stuff, just another Monday. How long have predators been the most well adapted creatures of this world? About 550 million years or so, at last count?
Cheers,
Burgho |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
“…The fact remains that Dave has hyped up his A?R for many a month, years in fact. We have endured taunts of 'I know something you dont know' and 'I am the greatest'. There is only one 'Great' and he could back up that claim POW SUCKKA!....Dave cannot.”
>>What I know that you don’t is the ability to ask the questions that solve the case. That is something that is in me. It is my realization that I have the same secret as that ocean that moves over the labyrinthine cliffs, question by question, rock by rock, green monster by green monster, as Nietzsche mused. Can’t you folks imagine this kind of thing at all? Are you so stuck in questions like “How often did MJD jump on the train from Blackheath to London?” that you can’t see the forest for the trees? What more do I have to do for you? What more can I do?
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
1. Mr. Palmer wrote: “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."
>>Baloney, RJ. This time you’ve opened such a schism between truth and reality you’ve basically got two places--you standing on a little fragmented asteroid and normal people on a real planet. I AM CERTAINLY STATING THAT I HAVE A THEORY. The title is “Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders.” In this title I’m stating that I’m taking a different, alternative tack; that I’m asking questions. How is this title “a manifestation of the case solution,” as you say? You make no sense.
2. “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.”
>>I have no such position. I’ve stated MANY times on this thread that my account of the case depends on and is justified by the empirical case evidence. Like Mr. Norder and Mr. Omlor, you use dishonesty in misrepresenting my positions here, in the hope that you can cause others who don’t read carefully to agree with you, and join you in kicking me down. I do not in any way represent that my work on the case can be true without empirical support. As I’ve said many times, my work is both rationalist and empirical in nature.
3. “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.”
>>THIS IS GARBAGE AND TRANSPARENT LIE. What I am against is narrow empiricism unimproved by rational criticism.
4. “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).”
>>It is true that I don’t have empirical documentation that Levy was in Hove to make an identification. This is one of the unseen aspects of my theory on the case that are logically justified by the parts that are seen. The notion that I must empirically prove Levy in Hove is an arbitrary restriction, unnecessary from the perspective of a rational theory explaining the whole of the case evidence. “Holism-solution” is a motto of Mr. Palmer’s creation, not mine. I do not have such a simplistic position. Rather, I attempt to demonstrate a holism OF THE CASE EVIDENCE, not a holism of just anything. I don’t have an arbitrary “desired critical mass,” either. I use the criteria of logical satisfaction—what a reasonable person should believe, based on the sum of all relevant considerations.
5. “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?”
>>I’d think critical assessment and appraisal of my work would be two-sided, and have to do with determining whether it has (1) adequate depth of ideas and (2) adequate disposition of the empirical case evidence. I’ve described three points related to this on another post that went to the queue at about the same time this post did.
{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."
>>NO. Don’t you know how to subsume particulars under a general rule? It is fundamental to all intellectual work. The center or main idea of the case is psychopathy. When we analyze the case evidence, we determine connections among and between various evidentiary features based on psychopathy. For example, when we analyze the empirical conditions in Mitre Square we find that he is attempting, by making various marks on a victim’s face, to communicate to a witness that he has been seen (“you saw me”) and identified (“I’m guilty”), but that the witness should keep quiet about the matter (“now it’s our secret.”) We establish tentatively these assessments because we know that psychopaths are fearless people with a supreme and often foolish confidence in getting what they want from others. THIS IS NOT BAFFLING, IT’S QUITE SIMPLE.
{3} (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.”
>>(a) First of all, it is hard for me to imagine that a sophist like Mr. Palmer would make a positive reference to a philosopher like Kant, such as in the above. Certainly philosophy would hold no distinctions of interest to Mr. Palmer. It would seem he’s just throwing anything into his argument that sounds to him like it might work at this point. (b) The center determines the parts if the holism of the parts, in virtue of the center, establishes a satisfactory identification and explanation of the empirical case evidence, taken as a whole. In other words, at the end, given that we have the historical record that we have, the solution offered is the correct solution.
{4} “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.”
>>IT IS CROSS-REFERENCING. It cross-references the empirical case evidence to rationality.
{5}. “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.'”
>>NO IT IS NOT. The only a priori in my theory is the center. The notion that there is enough data is known a posteriori.
(6} “He is confusing the concept of 'case evidence' with the concept of 'the historical record.'”
>>NO I’M NOT. The historical record is a greater set than the case evidence. The center enables logical connections to be made, using and choosing information from the historical record, to generate that body of case evidence needed to solve.
(7} “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?”
>>This is a deep question. Nowadays when readers get hold of deep questions it’s called deconstruction. One of the basic ideas of this field is that there never really was a center; that the whole of thought, knowledge and philosophy has no real connection to history, civilization, human development or to much of anything. Certainly it can always be hypothesized that there never was a center—the question is so ultimate and becomes so unwieldy to argue that anyone taking just about any side on the matter could conceivably claim a victory. This is essentially the position Mr. Palmer is taking above when he says “…the true solution {of the case} is likely to be entirely fragmented.” No empirical evidence is provided by Mr. Palmer to support this purported likelihood, while I provide considerable rationalist/empiricist analysis in my theory to support a single murderer operating under various sets of intelligible plans according to a recognized pathology.
{8} “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.”
>>I agree with Mr. Chisholm concerning much of what the murders mean and have meant to people. The only real difference is that he thinks the murders themselves are fragments, and I don’t. Ideas surrounding the work of Anderson, McNaghten, and such certainly ought to be de-centered.
{9} “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.”
>>Man is the bee of life. Attracted by various raw pollens, he makes a sweet honey. I think I can make an adequate pot full out of the historical records we have, you may not agree, if so that is your right as Ally would say. It all depends on if I can do it satisfactorily or not, all things considered. In the end what we will have is a reasonable balanced discussion about the Whitechapel murders, if I’m right.
{10.} “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?”
>>I don’t write for barmaids and shoemakers, but for those for whom thinking is a sport. I didn’t come to convict anyone, but only to sail on the winds of the truth.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Mr. House wrote: “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"> |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 8:29 pm: | |
Caz wrote: “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.”
>>My brain finally just got caught up with what this post meant. May God bless Meph for his good work, indeed.
David
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 11:09 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
In your June 27, 11:49am post you wrote:
1) "Radka states that his theory is 100% internally consistent and %100 'follows' the case evidence". I say, "so what?" So do the theories of Gosse".
2) "Radka has created a closed system. Fantasic. But this tells us nothing whatsoever about its relationship to the reality of what happened in 1888-1894".
Statement 2 gives me the impression that you didn't appreciate what Radka told you in statement 1:
A) He believes that his conclusion follows from the sum of his premises, i.e., the "theory [is] 100% internally consistent", and is therefore, valid.
B) All the hypotheses (100%), which contributed to the theory, are exclusively drawn from the historical record of the case.
You argue that Radka's claim, i.e., his summary is "internally consistent", is superfluous. "So what", you complain, valid arguments are necessary conditions for all deductive theories, like Gosse's for example. Your second statement adds to this point, claiming that Radka's "closed system" is a nice touch, but it doesn't tell you anything. Actually, it's not meant to tell you anything about the case, per se, it is, however, meant to layout the methodology he used to correlate the effects in the historical record, with his account of causality.
Section 1, "What is the Epistemological Center of the case" (here after, EC), is Radka's operational definition. An operational definition is a processual explanation which details how his analysis of the historical record, lead to the formation of his theory. All good academic papers in the Social Sciences, contain operational definitions. It permits other researchers to follow his process, and hopefully, reach the same conclusion; we call this External Validity. The fact that Radka chose to begin his summary in this fashion suggests that he is confident his conclusion is replicable, and therefore, he is confident his theory is sound. It's an explanation of his methodology RJ, not an explanation of the historical record. Including an explanation of methodology in one's paper is an important part of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is a uniform way of going about things, and as far as I can tell, Radka's methods are consistent with this doctrine.
You refer to a passage where Radka states: I define a series of such oppositions in the Thesis. This ultimately justifies my epistemological center by the completeness of my analysis of the "case evidence". I wanted to read this quote in context before I commented on it, but I couldn't find it, and I didn't feel like carefully reading through Radka's mental meat grinder again. Can you tell me where you found this in his summary?
You wrote: "His hypothesis is that there is a 'center' in the case evidence". I think you're misinterpreting Section 1, line 1, he isn't saying that there is a "center" in the "case evidence", what he is saying is that there is a single concept which correlates the dependent variables in the historical record; he identifies this idea as the epistemological center of his theory, i.e., psychopathy. In other words, the "case evidence", which pre-dates his theory, has its own characteristics, which exist independently from his theoretical EC.
Maybe I'm a little extra dense tonight, but I can't find the phrase 'ultimately justified' that you're quoting in reference to your "completeness of the analysis" idea. I'm not trying to be a smart ass RJ, I honestly can't find this stuff. But I'll comment on what you have written below, relative to what I understand Radka to be saying.
You wrote: "It's viciously circular. His hypothesis is that there is a 'center' in the case evidence (the murders of Stride, et. al. the Lusk kidney, etc.). BUT HIS SOLUTION IS DETERMINED ('utimately justified' as he puts it) BY THE COMPLETENESS OF THE ANALYSIS. In other words, the "wholeness" of his dissertation demonstrates the validity of the original thesis that there was wholeness. Wholeness=wholeness".
If I understand you correctly, it is your impression that Radka is telling you that because his theory is "holistic", he was able to determine that the "'center' in the case evidence" is likewise holistic. Am I close? If I am, then I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. If I'm not, then please ignore the following misconceptions.
In Section 1, Radka claims that his research was driven by a single idea, i.e., the murderer was a psychopath. All previous attempts to find a viable solution to the Whitechapel Murders had failed to account for all the events and conditions in the historical record, because their theoretical approach and methodology were unequal to the task. But, after a thorough analysis of the data, he found that he could correlate all these events and conditions, and therefore, his theoretical approach and his methodology must be sound. In other words, his claim that his theory and methods are appropriate is justified, because they can account for all the events and conditions in the historical record. Apparently, you object to this argument, because you claim that there is nothing "scientific nor rational nor philosophical" in Radka's theory to support the idea that "a 'fragmented' view of the case is intrinsically inferior to a 'holistic' one".
Your objection, however, ignores the fact that there must be some philosophy of science that justifies our belief, that a single killer murdered at least five women in the East End of London, during the Autum of 1888. The alternative to this line of reasoning is that we've been arguing over a number of independent murders that for some unknown reason, were grouped together under the convenient rubric of the Whitechapel Murders. Radka isn't arguing that the validity of his theoretical approach should be judged based on the value of holistic versus fragmented solutions. I think he's been rather adamant that it's a question of theoretical suitability. Clearly, he is arguing that his theoretical approach is "ultimately justified", because it offers to plausibly explain why these women were murdered by a single killer.
You argue that because Radka's approach has:
1 a single explanatory theme, which claims to address the historical record as a whole, and
2 that because his solution claims to reveal the "connective tissue" among those events and conditions that there must be some kind of voodoo science at work in his theory. I think that whether we realize it or not; whether we believe it or not, or whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, that a unified causal phenomenon has always existed among the events and conditions of the Whitechapel Murders. No one has been able to prove the existence of this "connective tissue" because they were always hamstrung by the constraints of empirical methodology.
The historical record is too complex and uncertain for the rigid demands of the empirical approach to contend with. Empirical investigation restricts the researcher to using the existing material evidence, and the vague, often contradictory testimony to build their hypotheses. It comes as no surprise to me that laboring under such conditions has thus far produced only partial solutions, or at best, whole theories with poorly correlated dependent variables. The events and conditions of the historical record, call for a more flexible theoretical approach, one that could reconcile all the evidence, by canceling out the flotsam and jetsam that hang about the periphery of the case, while retaining the relevant core material for analysis.
I believe that the successful theoretical model will have an algebraic flavor to it, similar to the system used for solving equivalent equations, i.e., a numeric value, expressed as either a positive or negative number, cancels out its opposite value on each side of the equation, until you're left with something like Radka's paradigm, S = EC, or Solution equals psychopath.
As usual RJ, its a pleasure exchanging ideas with you.
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 8:27 pm: | |
Mr. Palmer wrote: “Ah, I see. What was AP's phrase? Guilt by reason of flower arrangement? As I've always suspected, Radka's approach at a "solution" is an aesthetic one. A pretty pattern. But guess what? It doesn't matter that we are talking history, or that the case is 100+ years old. The concept of criminal guilt cannot be dissected from it's legal context. It's unconvincing nonsense to even suggest it. Any meaningful 'solution' has to be based in the legal tradition, ie., Empiricism. No alchemy allowed, sir. RP”
>>What really is the relationship between criminal guilt and study of the Whitechapel murders? How can it be said that what we are here to do is to find a criminal guilty in a court of law? We’re not. What we’re here to do is study as best we can, learn as much as we can, learn how to learn about what we have to learn about. If we can make a bit of headway, and we may need only a bit, perhaps we’ll have a solution en passant. Can’t you folks all see how this criminal guilt concept is all tied together with Mr. Andersson’s “lust murderer” perpetrator concept, with history, with one-sided empiricism, with “the courts,” with every kind of narrow-minded, unquestioning thinking, with lowness in relationship to the subject matter? Where is your faith in basic propositions, in simply sitting down and asking yourselves what is the best way to make sense out of a given situation? What are you going to do when you open the Thesis, and find Kant’s transcendental aesthetic? That’s what you’re going to find there, you know. Don’t you know how to be a bit transcendental? I’m not here to pick my teeth over how many bottles of Scotch ol’ “Sudden Death” imbibed per day, I want to ask fundamental questions.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
Hi Ms Hilliard,
I enjoyed your June 14 post (now archived) but can’t seem to tease out what your point is versus what Mephisto’s point was. You seem to be quoting him in places, then adding your own material in other places. If you could please keep things a bit more separate, I would be happy to respond.
Thanks for your interest!
David
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
