A discussion on weighing up two sides of an argument

[JeffHamm]

In fact he is highly intelligent.
Canadian currently over at Howard's site.

Hi DJA,

Possibly, as I missed his time on the boards all I can base things on are the comments I've seen, which have suggested he like to play games, and stats can be used inappropriately to that end, either by someone who really knows their stuff or by someone who doesn't really understand it, and everything in between. I probably should have said he probably misused them, rather than jump to the conclusion he didn't know what he was talking about.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

It's for this very reason I'm extremely curious to see what happens if the Zodiac Killer ever gets solved.

The only other case comparable to JtR which has ever been solved is EARONS. For 40 years there were in depth debates. Disagreements about many aspects of the case and arguments over reliability of information and aspects. Many people had a suspect in mind or theories they wouldn't budge from. Ultimately none of it mattered. Joseph DeAngelo never came up on anyone's radar once. No one got close to the correct answer. What this shows to me is that both sides can easily be wrong including the source material. In GSK attack #24 it was reported that the victims heard a car beeping it's horn and someone banging on the door while the attack was taking place. For years this led to a debate about a possible accomplice. In mid 2018 the victims in an interview revealed they had recently discovered it had been some close friends of theirs who had come to see if they wanted to hang out. Despite this I still see people erroneously use attack #24 when trying to implicate JJD's wife, brother or another person as an accomplice, despite their being no evidence whatsoever for one. This shows that for all we know any of the witnesses or inquests in the JtR case could be wrong but since it was so long ago we will almost certainly never know for sure.

Now back to the Zodiac. Ideally I would like it to be a suspect people already knew. If it was someone completely unknown like EARONS I feel JtR will almost certainly be the same. However if it is a known suspect it will give me confidence that we can solve this 130 year old mystery. What I would be interested to see is the fallout of a culprit being undeniably declared by the FBI to be the Zodiac. Mainly because if anyone thinks people on the JtR forums are protective of their pet suspects, which I don't btw, or theories about JtR, oh boy, the Zodiac forums are way way worse. The length some of them will go to in order to push there suspect and discredit others is startling and debates are much more heated which many personal attacks.

For example, if Arthur Leigh Allan was confirmed to be Zodiac by the FBI it would essentially mean this first main suspect was the actual killer. Many people have spent thousands of hours and pounds trying to prove the killer couldn't be ALA and that Graysmith is a liar about many of his claims. However this would mean Graysmith was right from the very start, the person the police at the time thought was Zodiac was actually Zodiac. Despite only circumstantial evidence supporting claims he was Zodiac and seemingly disproven DNA (very arguable IMO that neither sample were no where near good enough for a proper comparison), fingerprint matches and handwriting analysis which would all point at it not being ALA. Would this mean JtR can also be correctly identified with circumstantial evidence? Would Druitt or Kosminski be seen as more likely suspects due to being the main contemporary police suspects like ALA?

Alternatively, what if Richard Gaikowski was declared the Zodiac. A suspect some view as a complete joke and others view as the undeniable culprit. What what happen then, a suspect the majority of researchers have discredited with what is seemingly strong information turns out to be the actual killer. Would this put suspects like Deeming back into the picture despite the strong evidence he was in prison during the WM?

If Rick Marshall or Laurence Kane was the Zodiac Killer would in hindsight the living officers wished maybe they had focused on one of them instead of ALA since both were known to the police. RM was even the original suspect in the first draft of Graysmith's iconic book, but his publisher wanted a more interesting suspect so the second draft switched to ALA. Would this put suspects like Tumblety, Champan, Bury, James Kelly or Cutbush in more focus?

Before I go off on ever more of a tangent I would like to ask anyone who reads this a hypothetical question. What would you do if the canonical five were all exhumed, and complete DNA was recovered from all five which matched with suspected modern descendants. On three of the five complete foreign DNA was recovered which was all the same. This DNA was submitted for tracing on a database and came back with a match for Charles Lechmere. I know a scenario like this is completely impossible but my question is, in this situation with overwhelming evidence would you accept the solution?

Alternatively, if the DNA matched was Michael Ostrog what would reaction be? A suspect thought impossible due to overwhelming information and evidence showing he wasn't JtR actually was. Would you accept it even if all the circumstantial evidence said no, yet the forensic evidence said yes?

Also a side note, in this impossible hypothetical situation the testing and analysis would be overseen by the MET Police so there wouldn't be any of the nonsense Shawl BS like questionable methods and peer reviewing.

Whilst this situation is impossible for JtR is certainly is possible and hopefully will happen in the not too distant future for the Zodiac Killer. The conclusion and fallout will definitely be interesting and something to compare with our case of JtR. In the meantime we will have to keep researching in hope of finding the missing piece of the puzzle. But like the location of Donna Lass with the Zodiac. Even if we do finally identify JtR that's only half of the answer, working out the how and why is another great task to investigate, and whilst the Zodiac might still be alive to ask for the answer, JtR is certainly dead so it's up to all of us to solve everything.

Astatine

Hi Astatine,

Yes, will be interesting to see if anything comes from the DNA analysis they are trying to do with the Zodiac case. It's been a few years now I think, so I'm not hopeful. But, I would not be surprised if it turns out to be someone nobody's heard of. Getting to a suspect is a long way along the reasoning chain, and if an error was made in the early steps, one ends up at the wrong destination and spends a lot of time circling, thinking they are close.

As for the JtR case, if the examples you described for the DNA found, etc, were done in such a way that it was clear it was done properly, etc, then it would be hard to dispute the conclusion implied. This is where the inherent weight of evidence comes into play, and also the power of disconfirming evidence. See, if my suspect Bob (since I don't have one let's call them Bob) is the correct theory, one thing I would have to predict is that Kosminski's DNA will not be found on any of the bodies as there's no connection known. Finding it so strongly disconfirms my theory that Bob can go free (unless they also find Bob's, which is predicted to be found; see, not finding Bob's can be explained as "the conditions did not preserve other people's DNA on the body", but finding Kosminski's shows it does, and it's not Bob.

Anyway, I sort of want to avoid to many directly JtR topics here, as then we're likely to get distracted and on to those, rather than focus on the mechanics of reasoning and logic that go into how arguments and evidence and so forth lead us to rational changes in our beliefs.

But, that's not a topic that will appeal to everyone, and I was curious to see if anyone shares my interest in this area of philosophy of science. So far, however, the majority of replies in the thread appear to be stating they do not want to participate in the thread's topic.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Once you start defining the parameters of how an argument should be argued we are in the realms of parody, or worse, control of free speech. Argue as you see fit. If the other's side case is strong enough then it will be argued as such. Truth as an odds calculator, whatever next?

We're in the area of philosophy and logic actually. Discussing the formalities of logical reasoning no more hampers free speech than learning how to use a hammer hinders building things out of wood.

It's not something that comes up in typical conversations, but logical reasoning is a structured activity and some people like to know and explore how the tools they use work. It's not if interest to some, but it's not about controlling free speech in any way. Rather, the opposite, because people are free to say what they want, how should the rational observer evaluate what they are told? How do we logically change our beliefs based upon what we have been told, etc.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Hi DJA,

Possibly, as I missed his time on the boards all I can base things on are the comments I've seen, which have suggested he like to play games, and stats can be used inappropriately to that end, either by someone who really knows their stuff or by someone who doesn't really understand it, and everything in between. I probably should have said he probably misused them, rather than jump to the conclusion he didn't know what he was talking about.

- Jeff

Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia

[DJA]

yes it is.

- jeff

'snot!

[JeffHamm]

Ha ha. Yes, well before my time.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Ha ha. Yes, well before my time.

- Jeff

Thomas Bayes - Wikipedia

[GUT]

I’m related to Thomas Bayes many generations crack, does that count.

[Joshua Rogan]

I’m related to Thomas Bayes many generations crack, does that count.

What are the odds?

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

....I think it is important, and would be helpful to many discussions, therefore, to keep in mind that it is not a valid argument against a point to simply say “that information might be wrong”. What one has to do is draw upon information to show that the odds of it being wrong are truly in favour of that over that of the other Side.....

Hallelujah!, if only such a rule could be observed.
That, to my mind, doesn't mean someone needs to come up with statistics, but just post a parallel example from some incident that supports their objection.

Arguments, or counter-arguments, without supporting examples (evidence, data, information, etc.) are more often based on some myopic desire to dismiss the point being made.

[DJA]

I’m related to Thomas Bayes many generations crack, does that count.

Abby will be along to give his assessment

[DJA]

Hallelujah!, if only such a rule could be observed.
That, to my mind, doesn't mean someone needs to come up with statistics, but just post a parallel example from some incident that supports their objection.

Arguments, or counter-arguments, without supporting examples (evidence, data, information, etc.) are more often based on some myopic desire to dismiss the point being made.

You've spent way too much time conversing with Trev.

[DJA]

What are the odds?

Bayes' theorem - Wikipedia

[Wickerman]

Once you start defining the parameters of how an argument should be argued we are in the realms of parody, or worse, control of free speech. Argue as you see fit. If the other's side case is strong enough then it will be argued as such. Truth as an odds calculator, whatever next?

"Free speech" only applies to the government, not to privately owned forums. There is no free speech on private premises; pubs, stores, forums, etc.
Free Speech = the government cannot control what you say.

Many academic forums follow certain rules, and yes I know this is not an academic forum, but there are some basic's that posters should follow to add credence to their arguments.
Like for instance, one basic rule or guideline, in my opinion, should be to acknowledge that it is the evidence which speaks to a theory. Most students of murder cases must have heard the expression "let the evidence speak".
That point is basically saying, base your theory on known evidence, don't just throw out wild speculation and expect it to be taken seriously.
The same position is observed in a debate, don't just object because you don't like the proposal. Provide a legitimate objection, yes it might mean spending hours researching, but that is the point, when you research you learn, we all learn.

[erobitha]

Sorry, perhaps i should have provided some more info.

What I'm talking about is an area of philosophy of science called confirmation theory. It's the formal study of how reasonable conclusions are made based upon evidence and so forth.

What I was outlining is the core ideas, and for those familiar with statistical analysis, corresponds most closely to Bayesian analysis.

Anyway, for those who are not interested in the logic and reasoning the underlies how evidence is used to confirm or reject theories that's fine. It can be dry unless you're into such things. I know a bit about this area, but it's certainly not my area of speciality.

If nothing else, some might be interested to know that there are people who make a career out of arguing about how arguments work. It's not about just holding your own and refusing to back down, for example.

There may be no body keen on looking under the hood at how evidence is used to evaluate an idea, or how arguments work with respect to rational thought. That's cool, it will die on the vine. If anyone is interested, I'm happy to be involved too.

- Jeff

Is this how a court of law operates? Arguments should be operated on a legal basis, as oppossed to a statisitical one. Legal arguments are not about "not backing down", they are based on reasoned and rational debate with nuance and evidence. Ultimately then a jury decides if the cases have been made well enough, using whatever is presneted at that time. I'm still living in this world of arguments.

I uunderstand some radical free thinkers on here believe we are beyond the usual realms of reality, as we will never likely gain enough evidence whereby we gain general consensus. I would argue that is not true. The majority consensus on the C5 victims and other issues surrounding the case have had opinion, evidence and consensus. I'd be open to a jury-style approach as oppossed to a statistical one personally.

"Casebook Jury". People join the team for the defence, people join the team for prosection and then have a general vote for which side made the best case.