2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

[Lynn Cates]

once more

Hello Paul. Thanks.

I was NOT implying that DNA is a pseudoscience (well, not in the colloquial sense). DNA study is a part of biology and biology is a science. Sciences take their methodology from math and math depends on logic, which sits atop the pyramid.

I thought I had explained all that?

Once more, "pseudo" is false. It is akin to bad reasoning.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

legitimate science

Hello Chris.

"Dr. Jari's DNA testing is legitimate science. . ."

Of course it is. But it must be conducted by a competent scientist--one who understands various databases and what an error message is.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr. Poster]

Hello Paul. Thanks.

I was NOT implying that DNA is a pseudoscience (well, not in the colloquial sense). DNA study is a part of biology and biology is a science. Sciences take their methodology from math and math depends on logic, which sits atop the pyramid.

I thought I had explained all that?

Once more, "pseudo" is false. It is akin to bad reasoning.

Cheers.
LC

Youre right.....you didnt imply, you stated it as fact.

Science doesnt take its methodology from maths.

Now perhaps you will explain your contention that the mannin question is an incmpetent scientist?

Especially as he has published a whole lot more than you and presumably on topics of greater worth than your pseudophilosophical wafflings.

P

[Howard Brown]

Lets keep the wagon outta the ditch and please fight nice...thanks !

[Tom_Wescott]

Is Ripperology pseudohistory?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Edward Stow]

Most historians would say so.

[Cris Malone]

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.

Exactly.

[Tom_Wescott]

Didn't Jari invent a new 'technique' of DNA testing that has not been peer reviewed and put through the ringer of accuracy? If so, wouldn't that meant the jury is still out as to it's legitimacy in spite of Mr. P's and Begg's statements to the contrary?

Regarding Chris George's comment that Edwards' theory is like all others and requires a suspension of disbelief, the copy of Naming Jack the Ripper that I have says it requires no such thing because science has proved it. This clearly separates it from other theories, does it not?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Guest]

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.

Well, a respected DNA scientist from a leading American University along with an internationally recognized forensic toxicologist managed to solve the Crippen case after 100 years...didn't they?

JM

[Lynn Cates]

Thus saith the nutters . . .

Hello Tom.

". . . the copy of Naming Jack the Ripper that I have says it requires no such thing because science has proved it. This clearly separates it from other theories, does it not?"

Indeed. To say other wise is to be a nutter. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Cris Malone]

Didn't Jari invent a new 'technique' of DNA testing that has not been peer reviewed and put through the ringer of accuracy? If so, wouldn't that meant the jury is still out as to it's legitimacy in spite of Mr. P's and Begg's statements to the contrary?

Despite that, according to Edwards, the dynamic duo is going to seek to solve more murder mysteries - one in the UK and one in the U.S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, a respected DNA scientist from a leading American University along with an internationally recognized forensic toxicologist managed to solve the Crippen case after 100 years...didn't they?

JM

Indeed, and 'touch' DNA was utilized to make a mockery of the Jon Benet Ramsey case. Now the Ripper. Perhaps Lynn's not too far off when he talks of pseudo science.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mr. Poster]

Didn't Jari invent a new 'technique' of DNA testing that has not been peer reviewed and put through the ringer of accuracy? If so, wouldn't that meant the jury is still out as to it's legitimacy in spite of Mr. P's and Begg's statements to the contrary?

Regarding Chris George's comment that Edwards' theory is like all others and requires a suspension of disbelief, the copy of Naming Jack the Ripper that I have says it requires no such thing because science has proved it. This clearly separates it from other theories, does it not?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom

I notice you are once again making statements that you cannot back up. Then again, thats probably an admirable trait amongst Ripper authors.

Let me see......

If so, wouldn't that meant the jury is still out as to it's legitimacy in spite of Mr. P's and Begg's statements to the contrary?

Please show me where I said anything about legitimacy?

Of course you cannot but thats par for the course at this stage. The way you fling ill founded assertions around makes me wonder what exactly is in that book of yours.

What we did say was that it isnt pseudoscience.

If he had tried to extract the DNA using Mother Earth Pranamagnetism or something.....thats pseudoscience.

But he didnt. He tried some kind of solvent extraction under vacuum.

Both concepts well grouded in regular science and demonstrably not pseudoscience.

P

[Paul]

Didn't Jari invent a new 'technique' of DNA testing that has not been peer reviewed and put through the ringer of accuracy? If so, wouldn't that meant the jury is still out as to it's legitimacy in spite of Mr. P's and Begg's statements to the contrary?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

As I understand it, Dr L did not invent a new technique of DNA testing but a new technique for extracting DNA. And it was not an entirely new technique, but his adaptation of a technique that already existed. However, it isn't the technique that is it issue here. It is whether or not DNA testing is a science or a pseudoscience. Why there is any argument about this beats me because it is an accepted science.

[Mr. Poster]

Why there is any argument about this beats me because it is an accepted science.

I guess its because we have this sort of nonsensical gobbledygook here......

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.

.......which first injected the notion that we are dealing with "pseudoscience".

This sentence alone

When, ....we blunder regarding the science ........we are doing pseudoscience

indicates the level we are having to operate at.

Whilst not needing to point out the utter claptrap this statement is, its very unfortunate that it was ever written as it could be interepreted by the less cirtical minded that even in regular science there is some room for pseudoscience being done.

p