2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

[Chris G.]

From what I observed in Salisbury, the relationship between Mr. Edwards and Dr. Jari appeared congenial. Moreover, one would think that Dr. Jari would not be appearing on the same stage with Mr. Edwards if he had serious reservations about how his research was represented in the book.

[Lynn Cates]

happy

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"So you have no idea how happy or unhappy Dr. L was when he read the book as published."

Haven't the foggiest. If unhappy, well, he knew what to do about it.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Not so Great Expectations.

Hello Chris. Precisely.

If there is any sympathy expected from me for the good doctor, it is a futile expectation.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Caroline Anne Morris

Fair points made there.

If we need Dr. L's help in that regard, it's perhaps unwise to make too many public assumptions in the absence of public confirmations or denials.

The primary problem in getting succinct answers to questions would appear to be that dialogue channels have been effectively shut, it would appear. I have no doubt they will remain shut so long as we continue to witness the aspertions being cast.

Although reasonable approaches by people such as Robert Anderson seem to have potential.

One wonders what affect the presence of people such as Daz the Bull, the unlicensed boxing wiz, have on the nature of the relationship between the two main players in this tale?

p

[Robert Linford]

Hi Lars

I believe that Chris Phillips, an eminently reasonable man, asked JL for clarification by email and got nowhere. And Chris had actually helped RE with some genealogical info.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Robert

I have no doubt he is (a reasonable man). Perhaps he was tarred with the Casebook brush ....being a prolific poster and all..... because unfortunately for him, many of his posts are followed up by a barrage of oddness from perhaps less reasonable but equally prolific posters which serves, should one not be overly familiar with the constellation of Casebook stars, to place him in a bad light.

The fact remains......Sir Bob seems to have gotten farther with his approach (whatever that may have been ....Im tempted to think he introduced himself as "The Syphillis Guy") than others have with theirs.

Maybe having approached the man in person he was somehow assured that he wasnt going to be engaging with a "nutter" or whatever his impression is of internet posters.

In addition, we have no idea whatsoever that ones having helped Edwards with anything means that one is known to Louhelainen.

So Im not sure why having helped Edwards is assumed to be sufficient to place one in Louhelainens "non-nutter" category.

Saying that...maybe I misunderstood your point in that regard.

p

[Robert Linford]

Hi Lars

Yes, maybe JL didn't know that CP had helped RE. Maybe RA could ask CP for JL's email address, and if JL answers RA then all will be AOK. Anyway, TTFN.

[Lynn Cates]

initially speaking

Hello Robert. Also possible that thoughtful posters (ie, those who have not made bloody fools of themselves by standing and gaping over pseudoscience) have put all this shawl rot behind them ASAP. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Paul]

Hello Robert. Also possible that thoughtful posters (ie, those who have not made bloody fools of themselves by standing and gaping over pseudoscience) have put all this shawl rot behind them ASAP. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn
I'm not following you. To what pseudoscience do you refer?
Paul

[Lynn Cates]

the false

Hello Paul. Thanks.

We were assured that IF the science held up . . .

It did not. Someone or other did not understand DNA science. Whom that was I shall gladly leave to the conjecture of others.

This is analogous to my field, logic. Suppose I were to acknowledge the following as an example of valid deductive reasoning:

1. A implies B.

2 Not A.

Hence, not B.

That would be pseudologic. I have made an egregious error.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr. Poster]

Its a pity you wouldnt apply your "logic" to try and understand that DNA science is not pseudoscience and that the erroneous application of DNA science (assuming it was such) or any science still doesnt qualify it as pseudoscience.

In fact, I suspect strongly that of all the people involved, the only one engaged in something that approaches pseudoscience is yourself.

You and your guff are the main reason Ripperology is seen as a crackpot thing to be interested in.

p

[Paul]

Hello Lynn
Surely somebody apparently making a mistake with the science doesn't mean the science a pseudoscience. I hope not, anyway. If it did we'd have nothing left to call science.

Paul

[Lynn Cates]

Greek to me.

Hello Paul. Thanks.

Didn't mean to confuse but, you see, I was NOT thinking in the colloquial sense, but in the original Greek sense as "false."

Reasoning is what we do when, say, we say correctly that:

1. A implies B.

2. Not B

Hence not A.

When, however, we make judgments ABOUT reasoning, we are doing Logic. So in the example above, we have a valid piece of deductive reasoning--so common it is designated "Modus Tollens." (Cf. to the bad reasoning I demonstrated earlier.)

Likewise, REAL science includes doing experiments in a lab. We can make true statements about such science:

"Hmm, the present DNA includes 315.C."

We may even discuss the statistics of that science:

"So far as we know, based on past observations, its occurrence in people of European descent is about 99%."

When, however, we blunder regarding the science (I am making a necessary distinction between an object language and a meta one) we are doing pseudoscience--false science. Wish science included a word distinction for levels. Of course, language is, regrettably, NOT a strong point for most scientists.

Now colloquial usage is different. Here, "pseudoscience" refers to a discipline that may be regarded as not really a science. Hence, my colleagues in the "hard" sciences often regard "sociology" as a pseudoscience--not really a science at all.

I regret the confusion.

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

Wth all due respect 'tesing' the so called Eddowes Shawl is pseudoscience. And Crackpot. From the word go. The so called provenance of the shawl defeats itself. It comes with its own built-in self destruct label. That Sergeant Amos Simpson, from the faraway suburban precinct of the huge Metropolitan district was in Mitre Square, Adlgate Ward, City of London the night Catherine Eddowes was murdered.

That is the story, right?

The whole shawl thing baffles me. Why anyone cares. This is not the kind of DNA you take to the courthouse. You couldn't get a parking spot with this DNA.

Whoever made up the story to go with the shawl in the first place probably didn't know Catherine Eddowes was killed in the City of London or that CoL has their own police force. Also there was probably some transference of the apron story to the shawl 'legend.' (too big a word) It's all very Shallow Hal.

But I've learned my lesson on the apron. After being involved with what, Round 2 or 3, whatever with Trevor over the apron, it need not detain me ever again.

Roy

[Lynn Cates]

articulate

Hello Roy. Absolutely.

Wish EVERYONE could learn those lessons.

(Say, you said it much better than I did. Thanks.)

Cheers.
LC