Different Killers

[lynn cates]

sensible

Hello (again) Batman.

"It is not a science. It is psychology."

NOW you're making sense.

Keep going!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Fangen Wir an.

Hello Batman. Thanks.

One philosopher needs to be read regarding philosophy of science, and he is David Hume. Why? For PRECISELY the reason John quoted.

Unless, and until, you overcome the problem, you haven't even STARTED.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hi Batman

What is your opinion of Snook's view that complex geographical profiling models are no more accurate than simpler models? See, for example, Snook et al (2005) http://lab.pauljtaylor.com/wp-conten...ell-Taylor.pdf. Also see:http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/11026/1/17.pdf

In JtR every male in Whitechapel who was without an alibi is a potential candidate. We need ways to give priority to a section that has a better chance of turning up the suspect.

The geoprofile is only as good as the data entered into it.

I think what Snook et al., do, is to point to the investigation and say - see, age old tried and trusted police work on the ground solves crimes, but then omit that in order for the police to focus on an area, geoprofiling often occurs. For example, known offenders living near a crime where a similar crime takes place go to the top of the list. Then we have more complex cases involving credit card use and phone triangulation.

[John G]

Hi Batman

What is your opinion of Snook's view that complex geographical profiling models are no more accurate than simpler models? See, for example, Snook et al (2005) http://lab.pauljtaylor.com/wp-conten...ell-Taylor.pdf. Also see:http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/11026/1/17.pdf

[Batman]

I think we need to be cautious when accepting, uncritically, the opinions of criminal profilers. In fact, profiling surely cannot be remotely compared to a "hard" science, such as physics or biology; and some regard it as little more than a pseudoscience:

"There is a growing belief that profilers can accurately and consistently predict a criminal's characteristics based upon crime scene evidence...We contend that this belief is illusory because a critical analysis of research on CP showed that the field lacks theoretical grounding and empirical support...We proposed that a belief in such a psudoscientific practice is due to an interaction between the message and the mind..." (Snook et al, 2008)
See: http://www.sagepub.com/bartol3e/stud...cles/Snook.pdf

It would only be a pseudoscience, if it was called a science, but it isn't. It is not a science. It is psychology. However it can use science, which is why the snook paper generated some criticism after it, namely, that the authors had no said experience with applied police research. So between 2008 and today 2015, there have been a number of articles that challanged Snook, Which isn't surprising given people like Keppel actually help identify the culprits this way. Skepticism over psychology is fine, but to say it a pseudoscience, would be like comparing it to divining or phrenology.

By the way its amazing how some individuals who will quickly dismiss CP in one breath, later on tell us all about the psychology of the murderer and exactly what he was thinking! For example, he was thinking he was butchering an animal. What is that if not a psychological assesement?

[John G]

Outside his field? Keppel?

He catches serial killers using the methodology. Bang to rights.

Ted Bundy.

Gary Ridgeway.

You do realize your view of no connection is often the reason police departments didn't cooperate early enough to prevent more murders?

I think we need to be cautious when accepting, uncritically, the opinions of criminal profilers. In fact, profiling surely cannot be remotely compared to a "hard" science, such as physics or biology; and some regard it as little more than a pseudoscience:

"There is a growing belief that profilers can accurately and consistently predict a criminal's characteristics based upon crime scene evidence...We contend that this belief is illusory because a critical analysis of research on CP showed that the field lacks theoretical grounding and empirical support...We proposed that a belief in such a psudoscientific practice is due to an interaction between the message and the mind..." (Snook et al, 2008)
See: http://www.sagepub.com/bartol3e/stud...cles/Snook.pdf

[Batman]

Hello John. Thanks.

Quite. The most respected--by me, anyway--part of science is its addiction to falsifiability.

If some claim cannot be falsified, and cannot be replicated in the lab, whatever ELSE it is, it is most DEFINITELY NOT, science.

Cheers.
LC

Nothing wrong with a more robust null hypothesis test. Again if it sided with your view, would you reference it?

Alan Sokol is a philosopher who should be read on objectiveness through science.

I can you give several examples of science experiments without falsification if you want. For example scientific models where we infer a state in a segment we can't directly measure but because of the models precise predictive power we reject the extremely low probability of chance.

[lynn cates]

falsifiability

Hello John. Thanks.

Quite. The most respected--by me, anyway--part of science is its addiction to falsifiability.

If some claim cannot be falsified, and cannot be replicated in the lab, whatever ELSE it is, it is most DEFINITELY NOT, science.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting, have dismissed the DNA test by molecular biologist Dr. Jari Louhelainen, which is the centrepiece of the case against Kosminski, pointing to an “ "error of nomenclature" when using a DNA data base of one of the victim's relatives."

As much as I respect Sir Alec, he was late to the party.

"Could have fooled me."

I daresay. It's easily done.

"You have said so many things about your suspect I don't know what to trust."

Well, you might try the research. In fact, IF you believed something because I said it, I would be DEEPLY disappointed. Same for anyone else.

Do your OWN research and draw your OWN conclusions. If we disagree, fine. No problem.

But religious veneration for an "expert" outside his field?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Yes, I would argue that "religious veneration" to any theory or a supposed scientific "fact" is undesirable. I remember a little while ago researching the bio-medical model of mental health and quickly realized that it was pretty much in ruins, at least to the extent that it offers very little in the way of concrete evidence to support its conclusions, which a number of psychiatrists now seem to accept.

Here's another interesting quote: "The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."

[Harry D]

I see no reason to doubt Emma Smith's story that she was attacked by a gang of youths. We know there were reported gangs in the area roughing up prostitutes. I'd argue there's grounds for Tabram being a 'gang hit' as well, what with the frenzied nature of the murder and two separate murder weapons. Maybe one kept watch while the other went to town, then not to be left out, gave her a couple of jabs himself. And if not a gang, per se, then a couple of soldiers that Tabram had been soliciting that night.

[lynn cates]

terminology

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"The idealists reject non-mental substances."

Correct.

"This conflicts with empiricism."

No, it does not. In fact, IF Berkeley accomplished ANYTHING, he showed that ONLY the subjective idealist could be a consistent empiricist.

I'm glad to see you like Russell; but, I say, IF you wish to understand Berkeley, why not read "The Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous" and "The Principles of Human Knowledge"? I have, and more than once.

Here are the two schools of epistemology set out in order.

1. Rationalism =df. "The claim that one can have knowledge, apart from experience, by an intuition of the mind."

2. Empiricism =df. "The claim that ALL knowledge comes from the five senses."

Additionally:

3. Representative Realism =df. "The claim that we perceive our perceptions, BUT, these represent the external, material world."

4. Phenomenalism =df. "The claim that we perceive our perceptions." (Note the full stop.)

Descartes was 1 & 3; Locke, 2 & 3; Berkeley, 2 & 4.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

If DNA was somehow recovered from the victims due to some future touch DNA technology and confirmed your hypothesis would you reject it for the same criticism of expert testimony you gave here?

[Batman]

An accomplice is the only grounds to add another hand in this, or even gang related, for example Burke & Hare, The Hillside Strangulars, Otis Tools and Henry Lee Lucas, but that is because there is precedence for it.

Your hypothesis is yours. I can't reference it elsewhere. You are your own source.

After reading Keppel, I am less inclined to accept an accomplice, but its leaps ahead of the unprecedented multi killer hypothesis/ guests.

[Batman]

I'll leave it to Bertrand Russell thank you.

The idealists reject non-mental substances. This conflicts with empiricism.

I think you are confusing their retreat to agnostic grounds over physical matter due to some argument over mental perception they try to make.

[jerryd]

Batman,

Just trying to figure out what you subscribe to, 1 or more killers of the canonical five.

Here are two quotes from you,

1/24/2015

"It is unlikely the series known as The Whitechapel Murders were by the same hand. This is true.

It may also be true that JtR didn't work alone, therefore there is more than one murderer perhaps.

There are three core murders that are likely by the same hand. This is because it is highly unlikely that the complexity of the mutilations was a first kill for each. Chapman, Eddowes, MJK have that complexity."

and

2/13/2015

"1 killer for the canonical 5 is the minimum amount he murdered. Do to the escalating complexity of the murders, to ascribe more hands means you need more bodies for each murderer to account for the complexity. Those bodies simply are not there."