Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • faith

    Hello Chris. Ie, we are to take this all on faith.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • I venture some figures I have got from somewhere and which I don't pretend to understand, but if it is 1/290,000 then 21 men, women and children shared the DNA in 1888 London. If it is 1/29,000 then approximately 210 share the DNA in London. Either figure seems to be statiscally impressive. Or has this got nothing to do with anything and I'll go back to something I understand?

      Comment


      • 314.1C

        Hello Paul. Those figures, as you know, depend on the rarity of 314.1C. But now we know that this identification was a schoolboy error.

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
          Hi Paul. I Do understand what you are saying.
          Though I must admit to finding it slightly amusing too that the two people who would like to encourage academics to get involved but fear they are being put off by the way we behave towards each other are the ones most disturbed by resident academic, Lynn's attitude towards Jari.
          Hi Debs
          The irony was not lost on me either, but whilst I would encourage professional interest in what we do, academics aren't always professional, and with due respect to Lynn, I don't always find his posts professional. I was pulled up by his reference to pseudo-science. I asked what he meant and in return I was told the Greek root of 'pseudo' and what seemed to me to be academic face-saving waffle (of which I have more than enough experience). I still think that's what it was. Mr P seems to have independently formed the same opinion. The question remains unresolved, but I'm satisfied that there is nothing that Dr L did that can be defined as a pseudo-science.

          However, I don't really care whether Lynn has correctly used the word or not. Whatreally matters to some is that we want to talk to Dr L and ask the questions you and Chris and Tracy want answered. It seems to me that we should act professionally and not talk refer to Dr L's work as pseudo-science, or Dr L being a laughing stock, or insinuate that he is money grubbing, or anything else, unless we have the evidence to back it up. And that goes for professional academics as much as everyone else.

          I may add that if anyone doesn't like my approach to Lynn, it does at least demonstrate that I am not a proponant of kid gloves.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
            Hello Paul. Those figures, as you know, depend on the rarity of 314.1C. But now we know that this identification was a schoolboy error.

            Cheers.
            LC
            Don't know what they refer to Lynn. Just found them noted down and thought that had noting to do with it, but thought I'd ask before I sent the note into oblivion.

            Comment


            • professionalism

              Hello Paul.

              "I'm satisfied that there is nothing that Dr L did that can be defined as a pseudo-science."

              Then you tell me--what did he do? Science is science. It MUST hold up. But his X (fill in with your preferred phrase) did NOT hold up.

              What failed?

              1. Not science (if it is a noun).

              2. His reasoning? Then it was NOT science--it was false science. Hence "pseudo" (ie, false) science.

              Regarding professionalism: is it professional to insinuate someone is lying? (Since you like to ask for references, here it is "what seemed to me to be academic face-saving waffle (of which I have more than enough experience). I still think that's what it was.")

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • Well, the solution seems obvious : Lars himself should write to Jari, explaining that although he isn't a geneticist he is a scientist (and here Lars could give a list of his academic publications). Lars could assure Jari that he isn't one of the Ripperological nutters, and then ask Jari the pertinent questions that we all want to ask. Unless Jari has been perusing the message boards he might not even know that Lars posts here.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
                  Hello Paul.

                  "I'm satisfied that there is nothing that Dr L did that can be defined as a pseudo-science."

                  Then you tell me--what did he do? Science is science. It MUST hold up. But his X (fill in with your preferred phrase) did NOT hold up.

                  What failed?

                  1. Not science (if it is a noun).

                  2. His reasoning? Then it was NOT science--it was false science. Hence "pseudo" (ie, false) science.

                  Regarding professionalism: is it professional to insinuate someone is lying? (Since you like to ask for references, here it is "what seemed to me to be academic face-saving waffle (of which I have more than enough experience). I still think that's what it was.")

                  Cheers.
                  LC
                  You have no proof that Louhelainen did anything wrong.

                  You have Edwards version of everything.

                  You have no proof that science didnt "hold up".

                  You have no proof he made a schoolboy error.

                  p

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                    Well, the solution seems obvious : Lars himself should write to Jari, explaining that although he isn't a geneticist he is a scientist (and here Lars could give a list of his academic publications). Lars could assure Jari that he isn't one of the Ripperological nutters, and then ask Jari the pertinent questions that we all want to ask. Unless Jari has been perusing the message boards he might not even know that Lars posts here.
                    Thats actually not a bad idea!

                    P

                    Comment


                    • incidence

                      Hello (again) Paul. Thanks. Yes, those figures refer to the rarity of the occurrence of 314.1C in the population of London. But, with error corrected, its incidence is greater than 99/100. Not terribly rare.

                      You had indicated your awareness of the nature of the errors made. Perhaps, however, you haven't quite seen their serious nature?

                      Cheers.
                      LC

                      Comment


                      • reading

                        Hello Robert. Thanks.

                        "Unless Jari has been perusing the message boards he might not even know that Lars posts here."

                        Still might not, given he would have to read them. Very difficult task for an English speaker.

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
                          Very difficult task for an English speaker.

                          Cheers.
                          LC
                          Nothing wrong with my English.

                          P

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                            I can see you are as utterly devoid of argument as your book was of intelligence and are therefore reduced to making comments of this calibre.

                            P
                            Interesting. A couple of days ago you stated you hadn't read my book, but now it's 'devoid of intelligence'. So that's peer review in academia, is it? Denounce a book before you've read it?

                            Yours truly,

                            Tom Wescott

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                              Hmmm

                              I'll make some points.

                              1. Ripperology, as an -ology, has, outside of two websites (and perhaps within one of them) essentially no credibility as a discipline of any kind.

                              2. Its practitioners are, in the main, viewed as cranks by the public and press.

                              3. Attempts to revitalise the subject via concepts such as non-suspect Ripperology, "its more about the history" Ripperology and "respect the wimmin" Ripperology have failed.

                              4. Any time that experts outside the field have been unlucky enough to wander into it (Diary, Shawl etc) they have been treated dismally.

                              5. Debate within Ripperology consists of one or two reasonable voices being drowned out by the howls of the others due to a lack of any structured means of debate.

                              6. Ripperologists even turn on their own - witness the kerfuffle over the photograph Phillip Hutchinson unearthed as an example.

                              7. Ripperology doesnt have the skill base to make any further significant strides in the field.

                              8. The premier Ripper "website" has a reputation for lunacy largely due to the way debate is conducted and the inability of its owners to restrict what is going on.

                              Any of those problems above can be argued about in terms of magnitude but not in terms of whether they are actual or not.

                              By introducing "academic" and by that I mean dedicated practitioners of various disciplines that may be of use (humanities or not) who practice what they do within the structures and systems of their professions one might:

                              1. Give Ripperology or the study of teh Whitechapel murders some kind of formal credibility in the eys of historians and the public and so on.

                              2. Remove the crank title if possible.

                              3. Refocus ripperology back to the ripper by turning fresh eyes upon it instead of having to say "Oh we are more about the history now as we've run out of other ideas"

                              4.Provide a means of attracting rather than repelling people who may be able to assist from time to time (DNA experts and the like).

                              5. Provide the reasoned debate structure required to progress any field.

                              6. try and reduce the occurrence of ripperology eating its own as people defend their percieved pecking order in Ripperologys food chain by any means necessary

                              7. expand the skill base to one that includes the list I mentioned before and where work might be done on things other than the polish bobbies used on their whistles.

                              I dont see a need for strict peer review for everything written about the Ripper. Anything produced in technical matters should be peer reviewed but the humanities side of things has never been majorly reliant on strict peer review anyway.

                              A resistance to academia is in itself a sign of unhealth in the field - and dont make me explain as I think we already know the reasons.

                              p
                              This is actually a good, succinct post, and I agree with most of it. All I'll add is that Ripperology either pulls you in or it doesn't. If you don't have the 'bug', you can't and won't stick around. That applies to academics as well as it does to mechanics or grocery store clerks. My point being that adapting snobbery would not suddenly turn academics into Ripperologists. But let's say it did. What would be the advantage to the field? I suppose that's the big question I have. I'm not sitting on any artifacts that need to be scientifically tested, nor is anyone else I know. If such relevant artifacts are out there needing tested, they're being kept secret from most of us. But let's say one exists - money and not the credibility of the field is what would compel the appropriate scientist to conduct the necessary tests. For the record, I don't think anyone is opposed to more academics joining our ranks. Why would we be? Most of us just aren't desperate for them to do so. Now more skilled archivists and genealogists? I'm totally down for that.

                              Yours truly,

                              Tom Wescott

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                                It may have been one thing or a mixture of things, but it is unquestionably the case that they did not appreciate comments made on message boards and social media, Chris. I know that first hand.
                                Did they expect to like all the comments their proclamations received? Sounds like a ready-made excuse for silence to me. Edwards has been interested in Ripperology since 2001. That's almost as long as me and longer than many who post here. I believe we ALL know that if you proclaim to have solved the case you're going to be met with a healthy dose of skepticism. And if you claim to have solved the case using an item already dismissed by the field, you're going to have to expect some serious resistance. If Edwards did not warn Jari of this then that falls on Edwards and not us.

                                Paul, I apologize if you feel I misrepresented your motives. That was not my intention. But it is my observation, and the observation of others, that you hold people like Jari in a particular reverence, and the reason for this is not immediately clear. You've acknowledged that Jari made a mistake, have you not? Your occasional cryptic references to 'first hand' knowledge that you're not willing to expound on only fuel the fire.

                                Yours truly,

                                Tom Wescott

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X