Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

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

  • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    I didn't say that. Producing Catherine Eddowes' DNA from an item she apparently never touched can't be called a product of any science.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    Tom,
    Well, he didn't produce Eddowes's DNA from an item she never touched did he? What he did do was employ science to extract DNA which as a consequence of a mistake he thought was Eddowes'. He made a mistake.

    But I am fast losing the will to live. So I am going to bed.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
      .

      As an alternate suggestion, why can't laypeople learn a bit of logic/philosophy? I'd be only too happy to open a thread with tutorials--and I say that SINCERELY and warmly.

      Cheers.
      LC
      Oh for Gods sake. As if the internet isnt bad enough now even here will be full of bushy tailed neophyte Derridas spouting self validatory gobbledygook trying to appear intellectual.

      Ripperology....going from the unsolvable to the unbearable.

      P

      Comment


      • agreement at last

        Hello (again) Paul. Thanks.

        "Which is the crux of your argument isn't it?"

        Well, you're getting closer.

        "The science was real science, but the error was spurious reasoning."

        Now you have asked the key question to help overcome your perplexity. What PRECISELY was the science? Point it out to me.

        1. Was it a set of propositions about DNA?

        But surely he began with those from a text, his experience, etc.

        2. Was it his activity?

        Well, as I pointed out previously, an activity is neither true nor false.

        3. Was it his reasoning?

        Well, it led to 3 false propositions. As I pointed out to Tom, "truth" is part of the definition of science.

        So, once again I ask, What, precisely, was the science?

        "Pseudo-science is spurious science."

        Quite.

        "Therefore spurious reasoning is pseudo-science."

        BUT THAT IS WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE. We finally agree!!

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • http://www.compulink.co.uk/~stevemann/pseuds.htm

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
            As an alternate suggestion, why can't laypeople learn a bit of logic/philosophy? I'd be only too happy to open a thread with tutorials--and I say that SINCERELY and warmly.

            Cheers.
            LC
            I guess that lay people stupidly imagined that for all its difficulties the English language served to help them communicate effectively and that they didn't need to learn philosophy to understand its unique re-definition of words that they thought already had more than servicable meanings. Until they do, I'll stick to the customary and generally understood meaning of words. God knows what will happen if we all abandoned lexical meanings!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
              Hello (again) Paul. Thanks.

              "Which is the crux of your argument isn't it?"

              Well, you're getting closer.

              "The science was real science, but the error was spurious reasoning."

              Now you have asked the key question to help overcome your perplexity. What PRECISELY was the science? Point it out to me.

              1. Was it a set of propositions about DNA?

              But surely he began with those from a text, his experience, etc.

              2. Was it his activity?

              Well, as I pointed out previously, an activity is neither true nor false.

              3. Was it his reasoning?

              Well, it led to 3 false propositions. As I pointed out to Tom, "truth" is part of the definition of science.

              So, once again I ask, What, precisely, was the science?

              "Pseudo-science is spurious science."

              Quite.

              "Therefore spurious reasoning is pseudo-science."

              BUT THAT IS WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE. We finally agree!!

              Cheers.
              LC
              No, we don't. spurious reasoning is spurious reasoning. It's a mistake. But I am tired of this.

              Comment


              • Well.... Probably least said, soonest mended,

                Comment


                • My brain hurts........
                  If you're going to be two-faced at least make one of them pretty.

                  Comment


                  • reasoning

                    Hello Paul. Thanks.

                    "God knows what will happen if we all abandoned lexical meanings!"

                    I know too, and I am certainly not God. Confusion would end, and we could do some good reasoning.

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • my job

                      Hello (again) Paul. Thanks.

                      "No, we don't."

                      Oh?

                      "Spurious reasoning is spurious reasoning."

                      But below you said it was pseudo-science? And in THAT we agree.

                      "It's a mistake."

                      Indeed. And, in consequence, NOT science.

                      No offense, but scientific people--both real and imagined--simply MUST institute an object language/meta language distinction.

                      "But I am tired of this."

                      As am I. But if light is starting to dawn, it was worth it. After all, this IS my job.

                      Cheers.
                      LC

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                        {…}it is unquestionably the case that they did not appreciate comments made on message boards and social media, Chris. I know that first hand.
                        Well, I'm sorry to say, but they might as well get upset about the weather. This is how things work: You publish a book, you go public, you can be sure to expect criticisms and comments from anyone who feels the urge to comment online. Esp. now, in the information age. And esp. if the book claims to "have solved" such a pop culture-celebrated case as JTR.

                        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. 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.
                        Precisely.
                        Best regards,
                        Maria

                        Comment


                        • crazy

                          Hello Tracy. Thanks. I know what you mean.

                          If you think this is bad, try "validity." I usually cover this in week 1 of a philosophy class. It takes about a half hour but few get it the first time.

                          Once, a young lady came to me in week 13 or 14 of class. She said, "Now I know what you meant by validity. But when you first explained in week 1, I went back to the dorm and told everyone 'My instructor is crazy'--but I see you were right."

                          Cheers.
                          LC

                          Comment


                          • publishing

                            Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                            He said that amazon distributes for him. So while he may have copies of his own to send to friends, he doesnt appear to have piles of books round his house.
                            Excuse me, but for someone who keeps accusing posters in this thread to "not be able to follow the thread", and esp. for someone claiming to be a published scientist himself, you're demonstrating an extraordinary inability to comprehend how publishing works.


                            Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                            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.
                            Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                            No, Mr. P. You DO get printed copies. That's what a 'paperback' is. And if I'm not paying to print the copies, it's clearly not a 'vanity' press. Do you know what the word means?
                            I can attest to what Tom's saying. And by having self-published his book with amazon, he's making 10%-15% more profit out of sales compared to what I'm making, since I've published with an academic Press. (Not counting the additional royalties I'm going to make via a German collecting society for authors, which will be in the low to mid 3 figures.)

                            And the other main difference between traditional publishing and self-publishing is that with traditional publishing with an academic Press, there's a finite (and very low) number of printed copies (usually under 500, not counting an additional 100 free copies), and after that one has to pay AGAIN if they want to initiate a second edition. (Which in my case, I'm not interested in, since I'm planning an American version of my book with an American academic Press.) Compared to this, Tom, who self-published, can order copies of his book to sell in perpetuity, whenever the need arises.


                            Originally posted by Paul View Post
                            Self publishing.
                            Early days, but probably the way publishing will go, especially for niche or specialist books, which Tom's arguably is. And it is or can be financially more remunerative than traditional publishing. Unfortunately, it also means that there is a lot of dross published and the average reader has no real way of assessing the book's worth before purchasing. Amazon reviews are one way, but they're open to manipulation and can't always be trusted. Things will no doubt settle down in due course.
                            I agree about amazon reviews. Still, self-published books get reviewed in the printed press, in serious scholarly magazine and newspaper publications. Specifically Tom's book has won 3 awards, 2 of them in the history category, which automatically qualifies his first book as scholarly.
                            Best regards,
                            Maria

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                              Tom,
                              Well, he didn't produce Eddowes's DNA from an item she never touched did he? What he did do was employ science to extract DNA which as a consequence of a mistake he thought was Eddowes'. He made a mistake.

                              But I am fast losing the will to live. So I am going to bed.
                              You mention 'reasoning' as being the problem. But isn't DNA science supposed to be absolute and avoid of 'reason'? Such science isn't supposed to require endless speculation and suspension of disbelief, is it?

                              Another note of irony on this thread is you pointing out that the contracts of 'traditional publishing' are possibly the reason why Jari is allowing others to profit off his mistakes to the detriment of the public, while Mr. P is espousing the virtues of 'traditional publishing' as being the best and most honest way of producing books.

                              Yours truly,

                              Tom Wescott

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                                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.
                                Actually, it rather puzzles me that Paul Begg appears to be impressed with Jari Louhelainen, or at least, very protective of him. I was wondering why that is.
                                Best regards,
                                Maria

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X