2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

[Paul]

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

Roy,
Testing the shawl may have been a cockeyed idea to begin with, but the science employed wasn't. It was science pure and simple. Graphology is a peudoscience or a pretend-science. DNA isn't.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Roy

'Shallow Hal' is an anagram of 'Hallo Shawl.'

[Mr. Poster]

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 ha
ve 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

I can honestly say Ive never read a more convoluted befuddled attempt to get out of making aa statement on something one plainly hasnt a clue about and upon which one was rightly called.

I,ll save this example as a benchmark.
P

[Caroline Brown]

But if Mr. Edwards took his excellent science and destroyed it, then I feel quite sorry for him.

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

Hmmm....

I doubt 'the good doctor' is having sleepless nights, Lynn.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lynn Cates]

On Sonambulistics.

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Oh, completely agree. And I sleep well knowing I shall never be in the dock where he would present DNA evidence for the prosecution.

Now THAT would cause a sleep loss. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Caroline Brown]

I can honestly say Ive never read a more convoluted befuddled attempt to get out of making aa statement on something one plainly hasnt a clue about and upon which one was rightly called.

I,ll save this example as a benchmark.
P

Hi Mr. P,

Perhaps you should feel sorry for Lynn. That was one of his longest ever posts, when he could have saved himself the time and trouble by calling it faulty science - if he must keep stating what he claims is the bleedin' obvious.

Homeopathy is a false science, and tragically it continues to be endorsed by many who should know better, and relied on by even more who don't. That is a far worse state of affairs than one man being left to defend, drop or re-evaluate his DNA work, because even non-scientists are seeing flaws in it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lynn Cates]

Chaucer

Hello Caroline. I might have preferred "science"--in retrospect.

Many options are open to one who has command of the English language. Of course, not all do.

As the Wife of Bath put it:

"Each man hath of God his proper gift,
Some this, some that, as that him liketh shift."

Cheers.
LC

[Cris Malone]

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

Then I'm a crackpot too.

Roy Corduroy,
GREAT post.
If you will send me your address, I"ll send you a Cardinals baseball cap.

I'm not kidding.

[Lynn Cates]

researchers vs trolls

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Some, like you and me, do research and share; others prefer to troll.

ALL of us disagree; some, agreeably, others, less so.

Spot on about Roy. He said all I have said in the past--yet he has done so elegantly.

Of course, Tom Wescott and Stewart Evans long ago ruled all this nonsense out of court. Too bad only a few listened.

Oh, well, as my sainted mum would have had it, "What can nae be cured must be endured." But the endurance is about over as the community has recognised the "science" blunders and moved on. Well, at least most of the literate ones have.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr. Poster]

Wth all due respect 'tesing' the so called Eddowes Shawl is pseudoscience.

Roy

With all due respect Roy, it isn't. Its optimistic, deluded, misguided, whatever.

But pseudoscience it isnt.

I can see that buzzwords are replacing reasoned argument.

At least we havent returned to deconstructionism or alternaive reality readings of texts yet. SOon to come judging by the A is not B type of thing being offered a little farther up.

P

[Paul]

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Some, like you and me, do research and share; others prefer to troll.

ALL of us disagree; some, agreeably, others, less so.

Spot on about Roy. He said all I have said in the past--yet he has done so elegantly.

Of course, Tom Wescott and Stewart Evans long ago ruled all this nonsense out of court. Too bad only a few listened.

Oh, well, as my sainted mum would have had it, "What can nae be cured must be endured." But the endurance is about over as the community has recognised the "science" blunders and moved on. Well, at least most of the literate ones have.

Cheers.
LC

Apples and pears, Lynn. Apples and pears. Testing the shawl may have been a waste of time at the outset. That one argument. That the tests done on it were pseudoscience is another, and, of course, they weren't. I'm therefore not sure what is so spot on and eloquent about Roy's post, which, with due respect, was wrong.

[Mr. Poster]

Hello Caroline. I might have preferred "science"--in retrospect.

Many options are open to one who has command of the English language. Of course, not all do.

Cheers.
LC

Of course the ones who have actually mastered the language rather than just professing a command of it would have picked the right, indeed only, option.

and no amount of quoting poems of plays will hide the fact.

p

[Chris G.]

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

Roy,
Testing the shawl may have been a cockeyed idea to begin with, but the science employed wasn't. It was science pure and simple. Graphology is a peudoscience or a pretend-science. DNA isn't.

Roy is correct in saying that, given the lack of provenance of the shawl, i.e., any proof that it was ever near Catherine Eddowes or in Mitre Square, the testing would appear to be a nonstarter to begin with.

Dr. Jari's DNA testing is legitimate science but the question is, can it really show what Edwards says it shows? I believe that is what rankles with people here. Let alone the whole notion that DNA is capable of solving crimes that are now over 126 years old. It would seem to me that as with all theories about the case, Edwards' scenario depends on suspension of disbelief.

Best regards

Chris

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks Chris and yes I apologize for using the term pseudoscience. I don't know where I picked that up. Non-starter is better or cockeyed idea, what you said Paul. My topic sentence again:

Wth all due respect testing the so called Eddowes Shawl is a misapplication of science.

Roy

[Paul]

Thanks Chris and yes I apologize for using the term pseudoscience. I don't know where I picked that up. Non-starter is better or cockeyed idea, what you said Paul. My topic sentence again:

Wth all due respect testing the so called Eddowes Shawl is a misapplication of science.

Roy

I have no argument with that, Roy.