Astrology and Ripperology

[Christine]

Okay one last arcana....
Yes, so from a scientific perspective you have to assume materialism. The conventional ontology of science is thus physicalism. Its true some scientists are Platonists some even Idealists, but this is hard to justify empirically.

Well, I've heard some people argue that the whole idea of a non-material world is meaningless; that there are only material phenomena we don't understand. Our ancestors would certainly have considered electricity as non-material; now we accept it as such. Possibly astrology is governed by some force that we will someday consider to be a material phenomena. But I'm not sure it matters practically, and it's all off-topic...

Not at all, QM and astrology are both probabilistic and non-deterministic, I was merely pointing out that there's nothing in the experimental results or in the QM wave equation that say this is only applicable to particles, it should apply to tables as well, so these should exhibit QM properties. Thats not a mock thats a fact. The only thing that indicates otherwise is our everyday experience and common sense. Most physicists thus conclude the problem is with the equation, and so add a 'fiddle factor' (planck's constant) to restrict the equation to the micro level (and therefore by applying it probablistically to particles, can predict a large numbers of particles will statistically act classically in the main), they also have absurd ideas such as the collapse of a mathematical equation (the wave function) whatever that means (I know what it means btw its just dumb). More sensible scientistss realise classical physics is an illusion and we need to explain why we are not experiencing physical reality completely (why we experience a classical illusion when reality at every scale is physically quantum mechanical and probabilistic). My own approach is essentially Kantian, QM = noumenal reality, Experience = phenomenal reality, shaped by our mental categories.

Fair enough, but terms like "collapse of the wave function" can be interpreted in other ways, and the phenomena/noumena approach works fine for me. Anyhow, we can agree that astrology (if it works at all) can only by described in probabilistic terms, at least at the present.

Yes a deterministic or probabilistic astrology could be tested experimentally, but not objectively as each factor has dozens of different meanings and only makes sense in context, so I think it can't be achieved without background info, it only works as an aid not as a standalone technique.

Well, context and background info can be included in your analyses. Psychologists certainly do it.

I'm not unscientific or anti-scientific, I'm very pro science (my Master's degree was in philosophy of science! ) I just think its misunderstood, even by many scientists, and especially by the skeptical faith of 'scientism', which I argue is completely unscientific.

I'd argue that it's pragmatic, not unscientific. Science has plenty to say about art and love and religion and all sorts of other subjective phenomena, but pretty much all it says about astrology is that it doesn't give any useful information that the astrologer doesn't already have before he draws the chart.

See you used that word 'chance' again, this becomes very problematic when you eliminate the concept of randomness. But I'll take it to mean 'non determined by the astrologer'. But yes you could, but scientific method would have a problem with 'mars opposite venus' meaning one thing in one chart and something completely different in another, depending on its relation to everything else in chart, and an even bigger problem with it depending on whose chart it is! They could probably manage the idea that the exact meanings are never really standardised but based on personal intuition though. Thus methodology is a big problem.

We can use chance in this context without a problem though, because we're calculating the chance that a person randomly selected from a pool of persons will have a certain thing in his chart. Even though there are no random selections in real life, the chance can be found mathematically.

I don't see at all why the scientific method would have a problem with meanings in context. There certainly might be practical problems as the number of variables explodes, but this is not a problem with the method. What's more, you can narrow things down to 'Mars opposite Venus in relation to (whatever)' and if you can find enough examples of that, you should be able to make some sort of probabilistic conclusion.

Yes, in principle. Though there are almost certainly many different types of serial killer and many different indicators for each one. We'd also have to know what the material or social causal factors of their mental illness is in order to know what symbolic indicators to look for in the chart. Most astrologers seem to think a serial killer will be exceptional violent for instance, though research indicates most are no more violent than any of us, but merely lack our restraints (sociopathy), so the relevent indicators here are very different. Astrologers dont have a look up table, they have theories of psychology which they freely relate to the symbolic info coded in the chart. Pop text books saying X=Y are fine as a thumb rule for beginners but can be very misleading. Crap theory of psychology means crap astrology.

Well, I suggest that you NOT start with Jack the Ripper then. People have been attempting to work out Jack's psychological profile for years, and haven't come to any definitive conclusions, and that doesn't even begin to deal with the fact that we have very limited data on many of the top suspects. You're still trying to figure out what the chart of a "sexual sadist" might look like, and we don't even agree that Jack was a sexual sadist, so even if you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lewis Carroll (just an example ) WAS a sexual sadist, it wouldn't make him a candidate to be Jack the Ripper.

Fine in theory. Find 100 killers whose birthtime is known to the hour at least, divide them into types, and look for upto a 100 possible indicators (there are billions of possible combinations in astrology). Main drawback being its incredibly labour intensive and I have a life and money to earn. So in theory wonderful...

Yeah, but think of the practical implications. Let's imagine that we knew that everyone born in a certain town at a certain hour had a very high chance of being a psychotic killer. We could induce or delay labor or just move pregnant women to a different town and eliminate a large number of murders! Surely this is no harder than figuring out vaccines or vitamin K injections or silver nitrate eye drops, and just as useful. Plus we could potentially predict which babies would be geniuses and which would be depressed, or sickly, and easily control these factors.

The main reason these things are NOT being done is that astrology has failed much simpler tests, over and over again. It is not because scientists are determinists and materialists, or incapable of setting factors in context, or because it's a whole lot of work. It's because everyone who has sat down to do the hard work has eventually given it up as useless.

So if you really think there's something to this, then you have the opportunity to save lives and better society, and scientists will take you seriously if you come up with hard data and then you'll have lots of people who are willing to help you out. So, how about it?

[Christine]

>> Why these are "significant" dates?<<
That's the problem. I'm not astrologist. That's why I asked about help, I mean any existing theory. Maybe someone spend his whole life thinking about royal horoscopes etc. :] I'm new...

>> With only 365 days in any given year, every day has had something happen in history... Any astrological theory is going to depend upon which particular set you choose.<<
Yes. But the coronations aren't so common. I have checked six more cases. Just E.E. Smith (the first one?) was attacked the day Edward the Confessor was crowned. We can't eliminate, that canonical five (or five plus one) was realy important for the mad occultist/astrologist, and the rest (possible victims, letters and graffiti) was just a cover (if it was conspiracy!). Well, if Gull was such a madman, obsessed with royalty... I'm just asking.
And what about strange coincidence on November 9? No doubt, it was JUST a coincidence?

Best regards,
A

The problem is that you haven't defined your scope in advance. Coronations are actually not that uncommon when you start including births and all the coronations over the centuries, and all the coronations in different countries, and so on. If you take some random dates and pick out the most interesting things that happened on those dates, then draw a line around them, you can certainly get something very unlikely.

It's akin to picking five cards out of a deck then pointing out that the chance of getting those five cards at random is less than one in 3 billion (US billion).

So it's not impossible, but it could also just be coincidence.

[adamkle]

Coronations are actually not that uncommon when you start including births and all the coronations over the centuries, and all the coronations in different countries, and so on.

I do not include coronations in other countries than UK. So the number of coronation-days isn't so big. Especially in the weekends or public holidays in these 41 days from the end of august until November 9. This last day didn't match. There was no coronation. But there was more significant anniversary that in fact could "conclude" this strange royal list. Isn't it a conclusion? The birth of the next king?
Kind regards,
A.

[Sam Flynn]

Each canonical victim was murdered on the anniversary of important date for English/British monarchy:
August 31 – Henry VI became king
September 8 – William IV became king
September 30 - Henry IV became king

Is it possible, that the dates of these coronations were chosen astrologically by kings’ advisors? Maybe the ripper unwillingly choose the same dates for the same purpose?

Not unless he was taking into account the Julian/Gregorian calendar switch of 1752-53

Thanks for your post, though, Adam - although beware that such pattern-matching is usually no more relevant than reading tea leaves

[adamkle]

Not unless he was taking into account the Julian/Gregorian calendar switch of 1752-53

That's obvious! You are absolutely right! But I don't try to take this "astronomy" serious. Like some "science". I just thought about mad historian or pseudo-astrologist, who would think just about dates and historical symbols, not conjunctions

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Adam,

I just thought about mad historian or pseudo-astrologist, who would think just about dates and historical symbols

If so, then he got them badly out of sequence, and he seemingly ignored any number of coronation anniversaries in between.

[Christine]

I do not include coronations in other countries than UK. So the number of coronation-days isn't so big. Especially in the weekends or public holidays in these 41 days from the end of august until November 9. This last day didn't match. There was no coronation. But there was more significant anniversary that in fact could "conclude" this strange royal list. Isn't it a conclusion? The birth of the next king?
Kind regards,
A.

No, you aren't including coronations in other countries, but you are including a birth. My point is that your data set is fuzzy...once you start allowing questionable events in the number of possible "matches" becomes huge. If there were no birth on 9 November, but there was a coronation in Germany, then would you count that?

And as Sam points out, you have to deal with Julian/Gregorian dates, and the fact that numerous other royal births and coronations aren't in there, and so on.

Now if we had a record of one of the suspects saying something like "I'm going to murder some poor unfortunate on all the important UK coronation days and birthdays" it would be extremely important, because then you'd be specifying your set of dates in advance and it would be extremely unlikely that there would be a match. As it is, it's too easy to see patterns that probably aren't there.

[adamkle]

No, you aren't including coronations in other countries, but you are including a birth. If there were no birth on 9 November, but there was a coronation in Germany, then would you count that?

I didn't count any non-English coronation date. Yes, there was no coronation date on November 9. So I asked, why 11/09? Perhaps that was the end of the series, so it should finish with something more spectacular? The birth of future king could be such occasion. Why not? For a madman?

And as Sam points out, you have to deal with Julian/Gregorian dates, and the fact that numerous other royal births and coronations aren't in there, and so on.

Look, if i was a murderer and "the last defender of royal family", who want to be noticed, I would take simple calendar dates, that perhaps some people knows. I wouldn't celebrate queen Elizabeth's's birthday any days sooner or later just because the calendar was changed, right?
By the way, I kill just in the weekends, so the number of such "English royal anniversaries" from August 31 until November 9 is very limited. I've checked it...

[Doctor X]

I didn't count any non-English coronation date. Yes, there was no coronation date on November 9. So I asked, why 11/09?

And there is the mistake.

You assumed the answer and searched for the data. A bit like my identification of Sherman as the Ripper.

--J.D.

[adamkle]

And there is the mistake.You assumed the answer and searched for the data.

Well, if anything else failed... If there is a pattern (who knows?), we can find it it - or make it up - in any possible way. The truth is everything, not the methodology

We know that "royal conspiracy theory" exists. At least, don't you think that such a murder, made in the next king's birthday is always a bit suspicios looking? Maybe a madman didn't like Edward? Wanted to symbolically butcher HIM? Who? For example, his successor... Someone second-in-line to the throne

[Doctor X]

We know that "royal conspiracy theory" exists. At least, don't you think that such a murder, made in the next king's birthday is always a bit suspicios looking?

Understand I am not condemning you for asking such questions. The problem is there is other evidence against such that outweighs the coincidence of dates. Again, I think the more likely case it the dates fell conveniently for a Ripper who worked.

Maybe a madman didn't like Edward? Wanted to symbolically butcher HIM? Who? For example, his successor... Someone second-in-line to the throne

I would think, seriously, if that was the case, Jack would not make it so subtle.

--J.D.

[adamkle]

I would think, seriously, if that was the case, Jack would not make it so subtle.

You really think he was subtle? Even completely mad person from the royal family couldn't simply write with blood "Edward, I hate you" on the wall.
What more, murderer made his "ritual" for himself, not for the rest of the world.
Maybe it even wasn't JR? Maybe it was single murderous act.
Best regards,
A.

[Doctor X]

You really think he was subtle?

If some "royal message" was his intent, he prove inscrutable. If you feel he may have written the graffito, he grows imperceptible. Other than the coincidence of dates, there is no connection to slurring the royalty in the killings.

Even completely mad person from the royal family couldn't simply write with blood "Edward, I hate you" on the wall.

Why not? If we are going to toss about "what ifs," by what argument do you exclude that or anything else?

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[adamkle]

Let's imagine:

Someone second-in-line to the throne dreams about power. He hates, he kills, he imagines, but he doesn't want to be caught. He is mad. He - or his "associate/s" - make/s brutal ritual, that offends his grandmother and father, but his true identity must be hidden.
In 1888 famous prince Eddy was "second-in-line", wasn't he? But I don't know, if he dreamed about British throne. Well, I just think he could dislike Edward and Victoria. They didn't treat him as a good successor, did they? But, was he mad? Mad enough and so revengeful?
Poor Eddy. People loves "royal conspiracy theory" so much...
I'm suprised that no one mention this strange coincidence of November 9 in RC theories. Maybe I'm mad? No, I think I should just read more

[Christine]

I don't think you're made adamkle! It's actually possible. I think your mistake is not realizing how many strange coincidences can be made to fit the dates when you start allowing your definitions to stretch.

You started with UK coronations, which is a pretty small set. If I had a reference list I could probably figure out the chances that five random dates would fall on a coronation anniversary. I bet it's higher than you'd guess. But then you found a date that didn't fit, and found a fit for it.

We could also calculate the chances that five random dates would fit royal births and/or coronations, but the problem is that if there wasn't a royal birth but there was a foreign coronation (for example) would you have called that a fit as well? If so we really need to look at UK coronations, royal births, and foreign coronations (or whatever else).

So at this point, your set of potential dates is really very large, and of course you have to deal with Julian/Gregorian and weekend vs. weekday, which further complicates the whole thing.

Now if there were a suspect that had said something anti-coronation and anti-birthday, that would be different, because your set of dates would be constrained in advance, and you'd be fitting the murders to a fixed set of dates.