|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 9:02 am: | 
|
Quoted from: Ask Jeeves; written by Marian Livingston
"Metacognition refers to higher order thinking which involves active control over the cognitive processes . . . Metacognition" is often simply defined as "thinking about thinking." . . .overseeing and regulation of cognitive processes."
Metacognition is thinking about how you think. It is analyzing the logic through which you approach a problem. The scientific method is an example of metacognition. It is a recipe for correctly thinking your way through a problem.
The scientific method: the following is abstracted from http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
Observation: A good scientist is observant and notices thing in the world around him/herself. (S)he sees, hears, or in some other way notices what’s going on in the world and becomes curious about what’s happening. This can and does include reading and studying what others have done in the past because scientific knowledge is cumulative . . .
Question: The scientist then raises a question about what (s)he sees going on. The question raised must have a “simple,” concrete answer that can be obtained by performing an experiment. . .
Hypothesis: This is a tentative answer to the question: a testable explanation for what was observed. The scientist tries to explain what caused what was observed. . .
Prediction: Next, the experimenter uses deductive reasoning to test the hypothesis . . .
Testing: Then, the scientist performs the experiment to see if the predicted results are obtained. If the expected results are obtained, that supports (but does not prove) the hypothesis.
This is a wonderful article. It talks about serendipity (discovery by accident), inductive and deductive reasoning, and lots more.
Many times we get into arguments over whether conclusions are supported, etc. so maybe its time we start to think about how we think (without arguing)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 77
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 9:18 am: |
|
Diana!
So true!
Maybe we all should take classes..hahah
I am being serious. Maybe this is the best contribution to Casebook in ..a very long time..
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 07, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 641
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Observation: Well, we have a bunch of writings, basically, a few pictures and drawings and what remains of the landscape of Whitechapel in 2005. Unless something else turns up that is all we have to observe.
Question: The scientist then raises a question about what (s)he sees going on. The question raised must have a “simple,” concrete answer that can be obtained by performing an experiment. . .
Every time I come up with a possible scenario for how it could have happened and post it on these boards I am doing an experiment. I am trying to see if someone else knows something or has thought of something that could confirm or verify what I have said. It goes without saying that my scenarios have not been proven. What I am hoping will happen someday is that somebody will say, " Hey, that could maybe be true and I know just where to go to check it out. Lets see if there is a record in the PRO of whatever."
Hypothesis: This is a tentative answer to the question: a testable explanation for what was observed. The scientist tries to explain what caused what was observed. . .
The records in the PRO said something exciting which nobody had considered significant before, but it wasn't quite what I had expected. I must adjust my theory somewhat.
Prediction: Next, the experimenter uses deductive reasoning to test the hypothesis . . .
But if that is true then it must be that this is true and in that case we should expect to find this other thing, and we did!
Testing: Then, the scientist performs the experiment to see if the predicted results are obtained. If the expected results are obtained, that supports (but does not prove) the hypothesis.
Check out this new theory every way you can using the records that you have. It all checks out. Voila, mystery solved!
Most theories will not get past being posted. Usually this will be because nobody can think of a way to confirm them in the record.
The problem I'm seeing is that when somebody posts a theory, before any constructive debate can get started on how it could be proven or disproven, somebody says, "There's no proof of that. How can you say it might have happened that way?" Then the process shuts down with a bang.
Of course there is no proof. That's why its a theory. But if we don't take time to explore our theories and figure out ways to test them using the evidence we have we'll never get past theorizing and arguing.
I can't do much about testing because I live in the United States and I am not a millionaire who can afford travel. I can't get over there to look at things, records, etc. or walk up and down streets taking measurements. All I can do is toss out ideas.
I think we can assume that anything posted here is a theory. It is tedious to make every poster label it as such every time.
If I knew and could prove who JTR was I wouldn't be posting on an internet message board anyway. I would be writing a book and planning to retire in luxury.
(Message edited by Diana on June 07, 2005) |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 82
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Diana,
Again, you said the same thing I am thinking, albeit more eloquently than I ever could have.
But why are we alone on this thread?
(We got to stop meeting like this..)
Maybe we should advertise 
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 10:20 am: |
|
The problem I'm seeing is that when somebody posts a theory, before any constructive debate can get started on how it could be proven or disproven, somebody says, "There's no proof of that. How can you say it might have happened that way?" Then the process shuts down with a bang.
Yeah. Sounds very familiar. Unfortunately, there's too many self-proclaimed "experts" here with their own agendas to nurture. Oh, BTW Diana, did you ever find the post in the A?R archives where the "experts" of psychopathy proclaimed David's theory as erroneous? Remember? The illustrious editor of RN said the post was there, so it must be. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3506
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Diana,
I think there are some confusion going on here.
Firstly, I for my part enjoy your experiments and especially those charts you've done on Excel sheets.
Secondly, sometimes when people are saying "there is no evidence of this" they (myself included) should really say "there are no indications..." There is a difference and usually that is a result of sloppiness, I guess. Of course there is no proof of anything here.
But speculations and theories needs to some degree be based on what the facts tell us -- sometimes people are throwing out speculations and fairy-tales that are only supported by the creator's imagination, but not one solid piece of facts (not naming any names here). That, in my book, is not a serious approach because it practically allows us to state anything, no matter how ludicrous it is.
So there is a difference.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 705
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Hi Scott,
That thread again.
Yes, what David claimed about psychopathy was false. Even Mephisto proved that when quoting from sources while trying to support David. All anyone needs to do is slog through that train wreck of a thread, now locked due to totally inappropriate behavior by yourself and others, to see that.
Hi Glenn,
"Speculations and fairy-tales that are only supported by the creator's imagination, but not one solid piece of facts"? You obviously read that thread then. 
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3511
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
Yeah, like I said... I didn't want to mention any names. 
Mr Nelson,
Unfortunately, the only self-proclaimed psychological "expert" was someone with the initials DR (no offense, David), and whose "facts" about psychopaths did prove to be a bit far off track, to say the least.
Then, not to mention the fact that he based his whole theory on the belief that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath, which we are not in the position to either know or determine in the first place.
But I still love you, David!
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 643
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Brainstorming is one of the most effective methods of problem solving. Its premise is that everybody gets to toss out whatever idea they think of without criticism. Then ideas are modified and worked on.
There is a subtle difference between saying, "That is absolutely without foundation and I don't believe it." and saying, "It is possible it happened that way. Lets explore how we can either confirm or disprove it."
What I'm afraid of, and this may have happened already is that somebody will post a theory which happens to be the truth. Because it can't be proven immediately, some naysayer is going to shoot it down and it will be dropped. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 407
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 7:30 pm: |
|
I wouldn't be too afraid of that Diana because there are so many people here with very strong personalities and who can ably defend themselves (Adam vs Glenn anyone?).
There are also plenty of people who although they may not have any theories themselves, are willing to give a fair read to (almost) anyone else and at least hear them out. I count myself in the second group.
Mags
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3513
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
"(Adam vs Glenn anyone?)."
Ka-ching! Did anybody beam me up?
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 410
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:32 pm: |
|
Glenn, you know I love you!
And I also don't blame you for nothing.
Mags
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Glenn Andersson's real name is almost certainly not Lauritz, but Lobulsk. He is probably covering the Lobulsk with the Lauritz. I believe Glenn is a Polish Jew living in Sweden. Here is the basis of my assertion: I have a picture of Israel Lobulsk, often referred to as 'Lipski,' from an article in 'Ripperologist' written by Robert J. McLaughlin. It bears a truly remarkable family resemblance to the picture of Glenn Andersson appearing in his profile here. The face, the hair, the eyes, the gaze--all the same.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3526
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Hahaha! David, I love it!
Where have you been (I knew my post would wake you up.)
When are you ever going to register?
I am curious about your profile page.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 09, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Hello Diana,
Thank you for posting the link to Professor Carter’s biology page at the University of Cincinnati website.
I’ve noticed that for some time now, you’ve been urging the Casebook community to adopt a more scientific approach when examining theories and arguments.
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, at 2:44 pm, on the General Discussion board, Methodology thread, you wrote: “We have hashed JTR to death for years and gotten nowhere. But we've never really talked about the process. I want to initiate a thread where we talk about how we go about finding an answer.
The first suggestion I would like to make is that every proposed theory have a 'checkable detail'. This could be a birth record, death record, etc. Something outside the known body of evidence.
What the person is suggesting may even be true, but in the absence of a checkable detail we cant know if it is true.
Insisting on a checkable detail for every theory would eliminate some of the wrangling which goes on. Some of it is based on personalities. A says B's ideas are stupid so when A comes up with a theory B says his are stupid too. If A has an abrasive personality which has offended a number of other posters, his own theory is likely to be laughed at and rejected for the wrong reasons. But with the introduction of the requirement for a checkable detail the whole thing gets more objective”. In my Friday, January 07, 2005 - 4:38 pm reply, I agreed with your proposal: “I think you made a very valid point regarding verification as part of the research process” (My emphasis).
The continuity of ideas between your December post, and your posts of Tuesday, June 07, 2005, at 9:02 am and 3:37 pm, shows that you have been a consistent advocate for verification and objectivity, and I fully support your effort. In your 3:37 pm post you wrote: “The problem I'm seeing is that when somebody posts a theory, before any constructive debate can get started on how it could be proven or disproven, somebody says, 'There's no proof of that. How can you say it might have happened that way?' Then the process shuts down with a bang'”. Mr. Andersson’s reply, aptly demonstrates why this continues to happen.
To begin with, he has always maintained that the historical record of the Whitechapel Murders is incomplete, inaccurate, conflicting, etc. In his post of Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 11:04 am, he does not deviate from this line of reasoning, claiming that, “of course there is no proof of anything here”. He then suggests that any “serious” theoretical approach should be grounded in the case evidence. Let’s assume for a moment that Mr. Andersson’s “Catch 22” perspective is correct. If the case evidence is incomplete and conflicting, then every theory based on that information will be similarly distorted. It would be impossible for anyone to propose any workable ideas at all. Scientifically constructed theories and pure speculation would have the same value, because they were both derived from the same flawed historical record. If this is true, it follows that the research of Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Philip Sugden, Stewart Evans et al is unreliable and meaningless. But is this truly the case? No, I don’t believe it is.
We are able to reason plausible scenarios to account for the defects in the knowledgebase. The problem solving process always includes some degree of speculation, and as you’ve suggested, brainstorming is one of the most effect ways of turning speculation into testable hypotheses and viable theories.
Thomas Kuhn told us that knowledge is cumulative, so I don’t think it would be to far a stretch to assume that the above mentioned authors have cumulatively read every available document related to the case and saw a few interesting possibilities. At some point in the process, they must have speculated about something, verified their idea and confirmed it. You recommend that we follow that process, and I agree with your proposal. We should use the same methodology they used:
• Make an observation.
• Form a working hypothesis.
• Verify our data.
• Test the hypothesis for plausibility via argumentation.
If others can reach the same conclusions, then our hypotheses are confirmed; therefore, it is vital that rebuttals and counter claims should not only be objective, but should also conform to the same standards of replication, verification and support as the arguments they challenge. Unfortunately, many of the critiques I’ve read here, failed to display any of these attributes.
These arguments lack objectivity, checkable detail and organized thought, and their factual integrity is suspect. I’m sure you’ll agree that any proposition that uses unsupported and unverifiable claims to criticize a theory, hypothesis, or another argument, especially one that is supported by verifiable evidence and research, is unreliable hearsay. Furthermore, some individuals can’t even grasp the point of the post to which they’re responding. A good example of this absurdity can be found at the Victims board, on the Mary Kelly thread.
A new poster observed a phenomenon, and used inductive thinking to formulate a few judicious questions. He didn’t offer any hypotheses or draw any conclusions, he simply brought the phenomenon to our attention, and asked if anyone could explain it; in short, he sought answers. One individual, let’s call him A, responded to the newbie’s inquiry with a typical unsubstantiated reply; he claimed, “you can be fairly certain that nobody marked her at the scene” (Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 5:33 pm). A’s response lacks credibility, because he failed to support his argument with checkable details. How can we be certain that Kelly wasn’t “marked at the scene”? Where can we find information that substantiates this claim? There is no reason why anyone here should accept any argument on blind faith. A’s inept response more than justifies your proposal, and clearly demonstrates that:
1. Logical argumentation and the Scientific Method are not mutually exclusive processes.
2. Deductive and inductive ways of thinking are mutually exclusive methods of theory building.
3. It helps if one is able to tell the difference between a question and an argument.
In a different post on the same thread, A decreed that the newbie’s “completely unsupported statements need some actual logic and evidence before they can be taken seriously” (Saturday, April 02, 2005, at 2:53 pm). The newbie demonstrated that his reasoning closely follows Professor Carter’s description of the Scientific Method, i.e., he observed a phenomenon, and asked a few questions. He did not attempt to answer the questions himself; he simply asked for an explanation. A’s later posts make it clear that he mistook the newbie’s questions for declarative statements, and analyzed them with deductive reasoning, i.e., he used a generalization, or theory, to rationalize the newbie’s inductive train of thought.
In a reply to a contributor who challenged his faulty logic, A wrote: “Just look at what you showed up to support in this thread: numbers written on a corpse's leg based upon what somebody thinks they see and nobody else does who has examined it closely over the years. I mean, come on, get a grip” (Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:50 am). A’s misguided critique and mangled syntax, make it abundantly clear that no amount of verification or methodology, can compensation for muddled thought. The bottom line is, A was unable to distinguish between a question and a declarative statement. I think this is what Mr. Andersson meant, i.e., that A’s shoot from the lip style of problem solving “is not a serious approach because it practically allows us to state anything, no matter how ludicrous it is”.
Thank you for your time Diana.
Mephisto
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 710
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Mephisto,
Don't you get tired of trying to drag up old threads? And especially distorting the truth about what actually happened in them? And, please, of all the threads to try to make your case with, you are using a thread where I simply pointed out to a new poster that the little blobs on a photo that he thought were numbers weren't?
One would think that your sole reason (and that of David and Scott as well) for ever posting here is to try to get back at people who proved you wrong in another thread a full year ago!
Besides, I thought you had been banned for violating the rules against personal attacks. If you were and they just let you back, this is one heck of a bad way to start up again.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3531
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Mephisto,
"Mr. Andersson’s reply, aptly demonstrates why this continues to happen.
To begin with, he has always maintained that the historical record of the Whitechapel Murders is incomplete, inaccurate, conflicting, etc. In his post of Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 11:04 am, he does not deviate from this line of reasoning, claiming that, “of course there is no proof of anything here”. He then suggests that any “serious” theoretical approach should be grounded in the case evidence. Let’s assume for a moment that Mr. Andersson’s “Catch 22” perspective is correct. If the case evidence is incomplete and conflicting, then every theory based on that information will be similarly distorted. It would be impossible for anyone to propose any workable ideas at all. Scientifically constructed theories and pure speculation would have the same value, because they were both derived from the same flawed historical record. If this is true, it follows that the research of Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Philip Sugden, Stewart Evans et al is unreliable and meaningless. But is this truly the case? No, I don’t believe it is."
No, this is not what I meant.
The theories I referred to were the ones that usues pure speculation that is not even implied in the facts at hand but purely comes from imagination.
This is why I have criticized Radka's theories, and to an even larger degree, Richard Nunweek's theories about the number 39, the grave-spitting etc.
There is a Grand Canyon separating those from the reserach of Evans, Fido, Begg etc., who all stick to the case facts as long as possible when they deduce. And if they speculate, they say so.
Radka and Nunweek produces their theories as indisputable facts. Radka assumes and bases his whole theory on that the Ripper was a psychopath, although that is not possible to ascertain. It is dangerous to base a theory on such grounds. What if the Ripper wasn't a psychopath?
You should have stuck to archeology, Mephisto.
And, as Dan correctly states, this is an old discussion.
And for the record: I have not declared any war against Radka. I actually like Radka and misses him. The Boards aren't the same without him -- a real character.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 10:42 pm: |
|
Maybe I can illustrate what I mean by giving an example. The doctors think that Stride and Eddowes were killed with different knives. So I question: Why did he switch knives? Hypothesize: Could he have dropped the knife in his haste to get away from Diemschutz? I am not stating this as irrefutable fact but only as a possibility. Question: Why then wasn't it found? Hypothesis: It went somewhere in Dutfield's Yard that nobody thought to look. Since I am a millionaire  [not] I buy what is now Dutfield's Yard and proceed to tear it up. Way down inside the drain where the grapestalks were found there is an old rusty bloodstained knife with the name Kosminski etched in the handle. I get help from Patricia Cornwell to test the blood for DNA and then I find a descendant of Stride and somehow persuade them to give a sample and there are matching alleles! I have solved the mystery. You can't test a hypothesis unless you have a hypothesis. By definition a hypothesis is something as yet unproven. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
Diana,
you been reading uncle Jack!!?
Jenni |
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Dear Mr Norder,
Lets stick to the FACTS! Lets not weave our way from Diana's propositions and Memphisto's welcome, SEARCHING, reply. Are you ready to respond? By the way, Memphisto's field of specialised knowledge is NOT archeology but anthropology.
Rosey :-)
Dear Mr Andersson,
Gosh, your postings are voluminous and I find it difficult to keep up with them. So, do keep posting! Tell us what you think of Diana's propositions?
As for David R. he will forever have a place in Ripper Heaven :-))
As Ever, Rosey.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 711
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
Dear "Rosey",
I am sticking to the facts, and I already responded to all their attacks months ago on the threads where they were originally raised. If you want to see the responses, go to the threads that they refer to and read them. It'd be a waste to have to repeat them over and over on every thread they bring them up again on. Besides, the one thread was locked by Stephen based upon David, Mephisto and Scott violating the rules of this board, so I doubt he'd be too thrilled to find it all starting up again in a hijacked thread. It's a dead topic now, and deservedly so.
Also, I never said anything about archeology. Please try to keep your own facts straight before complaining about other people.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3542
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
True, Rosie,
It was me who mentioned archeology -- not Dan.
It actually says "archeologist" on Mephisto's own profile page.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 712
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Don't you feel the least bit creepy that David keeps trying to claim that you have Polish Jew ancestors that you are trying to hide? He said that over in this post too.
Maybe we should use some good old metacognitive analysis to try to figure out why he keeps doing that...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3544
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
Well, we all know he has an obsession with Polish Jews, so what the heck, I can take a joke. I actually find it quite amusing -- he once said in the chat room that it was meant as a joke with no pun intended anyway.
Creepy... well, rather an expression of weird humour, I guess.
He is actually right on one point, though; in my case, Lauritz (which is a common name in my neighbouring country Denmark and connected with the name Lars) IS in fact taken; my original middle name was Larry, which I changed because I wanted to empathize my Scandinavian roots when my book was published in 2002.
To disappoint Radka, I didn't do it to hide a Jewsh origin, though.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
this is getting tedious again isnt't it? or maybe you don't understand what I mean. i just mean, better to get back to the point of the thread i'd say. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3552
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
What exactly is the topic of this thread, Jenni, because I'll be honest.. I have no clue. It is just too theoretical for me and pretty much goes over my head.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 604
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:35 pm: |
|
Glenn,
What exactly is the topic of this thread
Darned if I know. Maybe if we dig deeply enough we'll find out.
Don.
(Message edited by supe on June 10, 2005)
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 225
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:55 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Interesting thread. Can't say I've fully grasped its meaning yet, but I'll do my best!
Maria:
"I wouldn't be too afraid of that Diana because there are so many people here with very strong personalities and who can ably defend themselves (Adam vs Glenn anyone?)."
HAHA!
Wouldn't be the first time, Maria!
I'm afraid to say though that Glenn has told me that he no longer wishes to get into long debates with me. I suspect he only says that because he doesn't want to be humiliated yet again, though! ;)
But thanks for the compliments, just the same. And I'm always up for a good debate!
Glenn:
"Secondly, sometimes when people are saying "there is no evidence of this" they (myself included) should really say "there are no indications..." There is a difference and usually that is a result of sloppiness, I guess. Of course there is no proof of anything here."
Exactly. Indications would be a much better word to use. Of course a lot depends on how you view what we do have to go on, but as you say, there is no conclusive proof of anything in this case. That leaves it wide open for hundreds, probably thousands of debates on various issues.
"Ka-ching! Did anybody beam me up?"
Yep, they did. What amazes me is how you manage to impress the women by just firing off little one-liners like that. Why don't I have the same powers, Glenn!? Haha.
Maybe it's because you're Swedish.....*shrug.*
Diana:
"There is a subtle difference between saying, "That is absolutely without foundation and I don't believe it." and saying, "It is possible it happened that way. Lets explore how we can either confirm or disprove it.""
Very true, Diana. I know that for one, I have myself said that a certain idea is ridiculous, or impossible, and that's just from a personal opinion point of view. I agree though that any and all ideas should atleast be explored before being ruled out. It just depends on your own perception of how likely or unlikely an idea is. For example, the difference between saying Jack killed 5 women, and Thomas Neill Cream was the Ripper. But I think most of us would agree the former is more likely than the latter. If there is a general agreement, there shouldn't be a problem. But if opinion is split, perhaps it deserves further exploration.
There are a lot of issues that would need further exploration though, if that was the case!!
Anyway, some interesting thoughts you've put forward, Diana. I agree with most of it, but I do feel there should be some limits to how seriously taken certain ideas are.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2524
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 7:31 am: |
|
Why are you asking me i didnt start it!! |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
Diana,
It is even worse than you think! If you look at your post of June9,2005, it can be stopped in many ways.
If you bought Dutfield's yard today, how can you be sure that you got every square inch from 1888. You would be destroying evidence by tearing it up. How can you be sure that the drain is the same exact one where the grapes were found, how could you prove that? The knife was a hoax and was dropped at a later date, or how do we know for sure that the knife didn't back up from another location? Which way was the knife facing when it was found and was it stuck into anything else in the drain? IF it was Kosminski's knife, how do we know someone else hadn't stole it or borrowed it. The
DNA testing was a false positive because the descendant of Stride had a rare blood disease...
I can just see the threads here on THe Casebook the above findings would generate...
Was Stride a victim of JTR?
Dutfield's Yard, correct location?
Was the knife a hoax? Old or Modern
Does the position of the knife clear Kominski?
You get the idea. I don't mean to be silly here, but I can see all of the above happening even though you feel you have proved your hypothesis. No matter what you feel you prove there will always be someway of disproving what you thought was fact. That is why so many things that are speculated get stopped before they begin.
Cheers,
Carolyn 
P.S. Everyone, please don't respond to any of the facts I have sited in the above post, as there are none. Only written to prove my point.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 117
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Carolyn,
But even so, don't you agree that some level of probability can be achieved through this kind of excersize?
Diana, when do we buy the Yard?
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of succesfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:05 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
The problem is that everyone has different views on probability, and even possibility. You and I might argue that the graffito and apron are probably linked, while others will argue they almost certainly are not linked. 
If we could all agree about the probabilities emerging from just one ripper fact, it would be a bloomin' miracle.
Love,
Caz
X |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 129
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:05 am: |
|
Caz,
Agree.
But where to draw the line? If something is, say 10\90 percent probable, it is certainly different than 90\10. Whereas a 50\50 chance should be accepted as undecided.
Of course, we'll never agree on the odds!
But such a scenario as Diana proposed might yield evidence that, under forensical analysis might be considered "Very Probable" to be connected and be used as evidence.
What laymen\women should decide is then not really to be taken serious (and that includes me)
Certainly, we may not all agree on that, but that is no concern of me! Some will forever believe Sickert did it, say.. I'm not concerned about that.
The scenario proposed was highly theorethical, as I understood it. But I fear we may not even agree on THEORETICAL evidence. Hahah
Mad, I tell you! Utterly Mad
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of succesfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
Helge,
I am not trying to throw cold water on any ideas... If you read some of my earlier posts I tried to bring up some new ideas. They did not go very far and as Diana said they were stopped cold before they could even start.
No, we will never agree on the odds and I believe anything is worth looking at as a possibility, even the simplest things.
Yes, the type of scenario Diane proposed could very well yield evidence that is very probable. I was just showing how something as probable would be torn apart logically... How people would be able to argue even things that appear almost as "concrete evidence" at first glance.
Yes, the scenario was highly theoretical and I was showing exactly how we can't even agree on theoretical evidence...I got Diane's point and carried it one step further (all in good fun) to the point of being silly.
I believe in the simplistic approach myself. I believe everything no matter how simple should and needs to be examined.
Carry on,
Carolyn  |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 133
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
Aw, Carolyn.
I knew you were awright!
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of succesfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:39 am: |
|
You want proof? Here is proof:
Q. How many Polish Jews currently living in Sweden does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. One, because there is currently only one Polish Jew living in Sweden.
|
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Dear Mr Norder,
My profuse apologises to you and Mr Andersson. I tend to confuse the Nordic posters >
Dear Mr Andersson,
Memphisto may well be a practising archeologist but he is highly regarded by us anthropologists of the species Homo Sapien. Hence our interest in Ripperologists in particular.
As Ever, "Rosey" :-)) |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
There has been one adequate example of metacognition in the history of Ripperology: The A?R Summary, published here April 26, 2004 and archived in the Dissertations section. Its purpose is to transcend the objective-subjective dichotomy by attaining a sufficient level of criticism. The critical nature of the work provides and analyzes a context, psychopathy, within which the whole of the case evidence can be analyzed logically, and causal connections within it identified. A?R is the divide between the old, candidate-based Ripperology of Evans, Rumbelow, Cornwell and many others, and the reason-modality of what might be termed the second wave. I am the point of origin of the second wave. A Ripperologist either wrote before me, or after.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Yes, Radka, and when I peer long enough at my elbow I see my asp. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 426
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Really,David, you should be posting on the "Cat the Ripper and Mr. Diddles" thread. Your humor is wasted here.
You are priceless!
Mags
|
AAR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
It's nice to know that we have so important a figure as Mr. Radka amongst us. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
1. Ms Comer wrote on the Methodology thread, Tuesday, December 21, 2004 (as cited by Mephisto above): “We have hashed JTR to death for years and gotten nowhere.”
>>I fully agree. Aside from the case-related empirical information they may provide, most books written about the case are worth nothing. Read my lips: NOTHING. And even less than nothing in many cases, their being incompetent and mis-directive. Unfortunately, most Ripperology is crankery, written to satisfy unrefined cravings. It is aimed at the type of person who feels pleased to cruise down a busy commercial road with his arm hanging out the car door, and the hair of his armpit fully visible and blowing in the wind. If this is the sort of thing that gives you pleasure, then I can recommend a good number of books on JtR you’d enjoy.
2. “But we've never really talked about the process.”
>>I have. That is what the A?R theory is all about. See item one of the A?R Summary in the Dissertations section of this web site.
3. “I want to initiate a thread where we talk about how we go about finding an answer. The first suggestion I would like to make is that every proposed theory have a 'checkable detail'. This could be a birth record, death record, etc. Something outside the known body of evidence. What the person {the Ripperologist} is suggesting may even be true, but in the absence of a checkable detail we cant know if it is true.
>>The idea of a checkable detail may qualify as a methodology, but the way you conceive of it above would, I think, justify even more crankery. The leaky boat of crank Ripperology is loaded to the gunwales with checkable empirical details, albeit they aren’t case-related. This is how the books are sold nowadays. You load up your manuscript with impeccably researched empirical information about your crank JtR candidate, and the publisher smiles. We can now be quite exact concerning D’Onston’s visit to Africa, for example, despite that it has not been shown to have anything to do with the Whitechapel murders. While the criterion of the checkable detail gives license to anyone who wants to sell a candidate based on empiricism, if you want to talk about an effective methodology, then I think you have to be capable of raising yourself to the level of criticism. And, absent some miraculous empirical revelation out of nowhere at some point (like the discovery of a sealed trunk of Montague John Druitt’s belongings containing preserved uteri), I see no means to reach an adequate level except by the methodology of explaining a solution to the case street-side, in other words, based on the known case evidence of the crimes, the closely-associated police investigations, and the newspaper reports. Just because all your details are true doesn’t mean you have a solution based on the criterion of truth—in order to accomplish that, you have to have true details PLUS a true idea of how those details relate to the case. The further removed your empirical details are from the case, the harder it is to justify them critically.
I assume the results of this post will follow the same pattern as some of my previous ones. That is, a good number of our drunks, drug addicts and dropouts will immediately pounce and declare it terribly wrong-headed, but in three months these same aggressive people will be proclaiming its main thoughts as their own invention.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 146
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 7:05 am: |
|
David,
Despite your crass tone and obvious disrespect for most of us here on the list (all of us?), I must agree that your latest post is impeccable in its logic and IMO (though you probably don't care) hits the core of the matter spot on.
But the idea of checkable details are not at all invalid. We should, perhaps, agree that the main platform for a theory must be details that are relevant and available as is, or inferred by the known (I hesitate to use the word) facts as detailed in official case documents. (as you suggested)
If only extraneous details are used as backbone for a theory, certainly the theory is irrelevant. And, yes, writers of pseudo-scientific books have unfortunately discovered that the way to make money is not necessarily to produce anything of value.
This said, your popularity are bound to hit rock bottom on this list after your last paragraph, I would imagine. Do you really expect all on this list to be professional researchers? Can't we amateurs also have our playground? Can't we use this area for some brainstorming (of which I'm sure you know most ideas are actually crap) Why is it that you choose to write anything at all here among us cretins? Have you misunderstood the purpose of this?
Of course you have not! I must conclude that your behaviour is either reflecting an unusual and anti-social personality (neither necessarily being a bad thing in itself), or a cunning (?) scheme to project controversy (which in some instances need not be a bad thing either). Or perhaps both.
And a smiley would perhaps be inappropriate here, but I emphasise that none of this is said in irony, frustration, nor even anything remotely like agitation.
Sincerely Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
I have to agree that my checkable detail should actually prove something. Maybe we need another adjective like "relevant" or "functional" or something else to put along side "checkable". It would be nice to know Elizabeth Stride's birthday, but knowing it would probably not get us any farther.
Sometimes though person A can come up with an interesting and plausible theory but doesn't know how to come up with a checkable detail. When posted here, person B might see it and say, "I know how to check that out."
Also those of you who live in England are at an advantage. All of the documents, the geographical sites, and probably any physical evidence which may be discovered in the future are at your fingertips. Most descendants of the principal persons are probably still in England. In many respects the rest of us are dependent on you to do things that we can't in terms of looking things up and checking things out.
Sometimes in the past I have posted a theory and in the back of my mind I'm thinking, "If only somebody in England could look this up or measure that street" etc. etc. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 1:15 pm: |
|
Helge,
Actually, the real reason I post here is because I like women. I enjoy the Profiles sections. We have some real cuties. A certain N and also a C are particularly lovely, tops among a top-flight group.
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 613
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
David,
You have to get out more. Right here in our shared state are many attractive, intelligent women -- and they are flesh and blood, not pixels on a screen.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3611
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Maybe pixels are less scary to deal with for some people?
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 147
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Haha!
David, you are simply (I don't have words for it, so you may substitute whatever you like here)!
Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 148
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Diana,
"Also those of you who live in England are at an advantage"
Yes, I agree. I have spent days harassing diverse London authorities by phone and mail trying to get measurements for my Goulston street mathematical endeavours (available light for a possible night time GSG writing)
Its getting there, though (even know the average lamp output now). And 0.07 lux seems to be pretty spot on so far.
Ok. Mea Culpa. This did not belong to this thread, but I just commented on a comment here, didn't I ?
Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 654
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
From: http://www.foundersofscience.net/jenner.htm
Working by himself with his own financial resources, Jenner, a successful practicing physician, collated cases of subjects who had suffered from cowpox and were subsequently immune to smallpox. His thesis "that the Cow-pox protects the human constitution from the infection of the Small-pox" was tested by vaccinating patients with fluid from pustles of cowpox-infected patients and then showing that these subjects were immune to smallpox.
Suppose somebody had come along and said, "Jenner, I cannot accept that just because a few milkmaids haven't gotten smallpox yet, you think you have a cure. You're way out on a limb with wild speculations." And then Jenner had said, "You're probably right. I'm being silly. It's a waste of time."
You can't prove a hypothesis until you have a hypothesis.
If the only allowable hypotheses are ones that can be already proven, then we will never solve it. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Ms Comer wrote:
"I have to agree that my checkable detail should actually prove something. Maybe we need another adjective like "relevant" or "functional" or something else to put along side "checkable". It would be nice to know Elizabeth Stride's birthday, but knowing it would probably not get us any farther."
>>I think the word you are looking for here is "integral." Each piece of empirical information, as the Ripperologist uses it, needs to integrate to a complete account of all the case evidence, taken as a whole. Otherwise, there is no way to know whether the connections one is suggesting are related to the actual events of the case.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
