Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

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

  • And it's not as if Jari fell off of a turnip truck and landed on Russell Edwards right before the publication of 'Naming Jack the Ripper'. He and Edwards were parading the shawl around for the 2012 Deeming documentary. If Jari knows very little about the case, and his participation was solely providing the scientific testing of the shawl for the book (therefore held blameless for any mistakes that appear in print), then why the tag teaming around with Edwards, appearing very much like his "partner", in a Ripper documentary 3 years ago? I give him credit for knowing exactly what he was doing.

    JM

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
      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
      To be fair Tom, I owe you an apology.

      I applied my usual judgement to a vanity press book.

      And maybe it doesnt deserve that. Maybe i should get it.

      You know I might be suprised! It mabe an Epiphany even!

      You know......like an Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders.

      P

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
        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.

        Yours truly,

        Tom Wescott
        A healthy dose of scepticism is a damn sight different to the overdose of bile flung about by Lynn Cates, Mick Reed, Cogdibinus and someone called Mrs Barnett amongst others. Thats not scepticism. Its something else. And hardly palatable.

        P

        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
          Lynn
          Dr L made a mistake, an error of interpretation or, as is repeatedly stated, an 'error of nomenclature'. I cannot find anywhere an instance of 'pseudo-science' being applied to an error. The meaning of 'pseudo-science' seems clear: it is something that professes to be a science but isn't. It is pretence. It is something like phrenology or graphology. I can't see where anything Dr L did was pretence. He did not pretend that 314.1C was a rare mutation, he genuinely believed it was. He made a mistake of interpretation. That does not make the science a pretend science. I don't know how else to express it: a mistake is not pseudo-science.

          I am not insinuating that you are lying. I said, and said with some care, that 'it seemed to me' you were engaging in academic face saving waffle. I indicated at the time that all the Anglo-American whatever, and the meta-whatsits, had no bearing as far as I could see on the meaning and use of 'pseudo-science'. I'm sure you believe it does, and maybe you are correct, but to a simple wordsmth the dictionary definition is utterly unambiguous, and it doesn't mean a mistake. I am therefore at a loss to know what all the meta-whatsit stuff is all about - unless it refers to a specialist use of pseudo-science that hasn't as yet made it into the OED.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
            To be fair Tom, I owe you an apology.

            I applied my usual judgement to a vanity press book.

            And maybe it doesnt deserve that. Maybe i should get it.

            You know I might be suprised! It mabe an Epiphany even!

            You know......like an Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders.

            P
            Apology accepted. But it was not a 'vanity press' book. You're so old school, Mr. P.

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
              Thats actually not a bad idea!

              P
              Actually it is a very good one.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
                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
                The serious nature is that the claimed match with the descendant of Eddowes is out of the window and the conclusion offered in the book is rubbish. I think that's pretty much how most people understand things.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                  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
                  Denouncing a book before one's read it seems to be acceptable in certain quarters of Ripperology. It's even okay to be proud of not having read it. It's even okay to rubbish a book one hasn't read in the national press. Maybe academia is learning from Ripperology - now that would be an involvement of academics that I didn't anticipate.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                    The serious nature is that the claimed match with the descendant of Eddowes is out of the window and the conclusion offered in the book is rubbish. I think that's pretty much how most people understand things.
                    Not me. If its out of the window due to this serious error .... how come the dr can give lengthy interviews without ever mentioning this mutation and still have apparent faith in his identification of Eddowes?

                    If the identification remains viable, ie. not being out of the window, as appears to be the case given the dr being entirely unconcerned with this mutation before or after being notified of it, then it wasnt a serious error to begin with?

                    p

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                      Denouncing a book before one's read it seems to be acceptable in certain quarters of Ripperology. It's even okay to be proud of not having read it. It's even okay to rubbish a book one hasn't read in the national press. Maybe academia is learning from Ripperology - now that would be an involvement of academics that I didn't anticipate.
                      I know that comment wasn't aimed specifically at me, but since I was quoted I'll mention I have read Edwards' book, or at least most of it. I did do some skimming.

                      Yours truly,

                      Tom Wescott

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                        Apology accepted. But it was not a 'vanity press' book. You're so old school, Mr. P.

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott
                        I am Tom.

                        I was hoping youd get the dig of it being an Epiphany. Or maybe you did.

                        Anyhoo...if its not vanity press....what is it called these days? "Independant publisher"? "Hipster press"? "Non Aligned Publishing"?

                        p

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JMenges View Post
                          And it's not as if Jari fell off of a turnip truck and landed on Russell Edwards right before the publication of 'Naming Jack the Ripper'. He and Edwards were parading the shawl around for the 2012 Deeming documentary. If Jari knows very little about the case, and his participation was solely providing the scientific testing of the shawl for the book (therefore held blameless for any mistakes that appear in print), then why the tag teaming around with Edwards, appearing very much like his "partner", in a Ripper documentary 3 years ago? I give him credit for knowing exactly what he was doing.

                          JM
                          Is that true? I thought the TV documentary people brought in Dr L to test the shawl and that was where he and Russell met. It was some time after that - does the book indicate how long after? (My copy isn't to hand) - that Dr L offered to 'hoover' the shawl. I don't think they can be charged with tag-teaming the shawl three years ago.

                          Comment


                          • To bile or not to bile

                            Mrs Poster,

                            I have had a look through my Casebook posts concerning the shawl and can't see anything that I would classify as bile.

                            There were one or two pathetic attempts at humour (my speciality) such as the comment that I didn't understand why everyone was being so nasty to the respected $cientist, but nothing majorly 'bilious'.

                            If that's the sort of thing you consider an outpouring of bile, you must have lead a very sheltered life indeed. I would describe it as a gentle wind up, and one I believe I was perfectly entitled to express.

                            I had just spent £18 of my hard earned money on the book, based on a TV interview where RE assured the interviewer that Kos was 'definitely' JTR. The interviewer offered 'probably' and was immediately slapped down by RE. He insisted it was DEFINITELY - the science proved it. I had also heard a radio interview with Jari in which, although he wasn't as bullish as his colleague, he didn't exactly rock the boat. And he certainly didn't let on that RE's certainty may have been based upon an error in the science.

                            Cheers,

                            MrB (the operation was a success).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                              I know that comment wasn't aimed specifically at me, but since I was quoted I'll mention I have read Edwards' book, or at least most of it. I did do some skimming.

                              Yours truly,

                              Tom Wescott
                              No, it certainly was not directed at you. Or anyone really. But definitely not you.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                                I am Tom.

                                I was hoping youd get the dig of it being an Epiphany. Or maybe you did.

                                Anyhoo...if its not vanity press....what is it called these days? "Independant publisher"? "Hipster press"? "Non Aligned Publishing"?

                                p
                                Of course I got the 'dig'. It wasn't a very good one. There are vanity presses, of course. Those are where an author pays a bunch of money to have copies of their book printed and shipped to them. That's more in line with how traditional publishing works in this day and age. What I did was different, I publish print on demand through createspace and then on Kindle, both via Amazon. So it costs me nothing, I retain full control, make way more in royalties, and Amazon mails out the paperbacks for me. I'm going to generously assume you know how Kindle works so I won't explain that. If you still don't see the difference, feel free to say so.

                                Yours truly,

                                Tom Wescott

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X