An experiment

[David Orsam]

Schoolchildren in England in the 19th century were taught in the same copybook style, with writing exercises in penmanship set out in textbooks. It would be the same style if you were the son (or daughter) of an unemployed porter in the London slums, the child of a gamekeeper in the country, or of a shopkeeper in town or the child of an aristocrat or prime minister. It was standardised script.

Thank you for clarifying this Rosella.

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre

I have now asked you the same question several times:


"1. Was the GSG written by the killer? if so it was aimed to put the blame on the local Jewish population.

2. Was the GSG just local anti-Semitic graffiti and nothing to do with the murders.

Honestly I do not know, but I choose to believe the second option until someone proves otherwise.



Could you explain why neither of these options is plausible in your view?"




I was hoping that you would give me a detailed, logical answer. You know, REAL Logical Scientific Reasons.

Unfortunately you first attempt to answer my question did not do this (see below). rather it seemed to say you did not find the options acceptable because............

You do not find them plausible.


"Sure. I do not accept them as plausible since I have a responsibility as a researcher to understand the GSG as long as it is discussed in connection to the case. Historical sources are not allowed to be overlooked or misunderstood. So one must try with all means necessary to analyse and interpret them. That is my first motivation. The second is that this GSG is very problematic from the point of view of history and linguistics. So it is interesting and worth analysing. "




When pressed on this reply, you said in Post #262



"read my answer to Rosella above, #261."



So off I went and looked at that Post only to find you had still not given reasons why either option was implausible.



I further replied with Post #267



It is noted that you have neither replied to that post nor given a satisfactory answer to my question yet.

The role of a scientist as you well know is to look at all the possible answers to a problem based on the known facts, even if one does not personally feel they could be the answer, to then give clear reasoned arguments, backed by FACT why any of the alternatives is not possible.

The end result may well be that you have several possibility left, all of which may have a problem, but which cannot be fully dismissed by the available facts.
One may favour a particular answer, as I do with the GSG, stated above.
However I do not know for sure this is the correct answer.

This my friend is what you have not done!
You started this thread from the non objective viewpoint that the GSG as it stands is wrong, of course it follows that if the GSG is wrong, then any theories about it must also be wrong.
Your reasoning for this appears to be that you Do Not Understand it. It does not fit your preconceived theory about the murders in 1888.

It does not matter what branch of science you work in:
That is not Objective science.
That is not Good Science.

regards

Steve

[GUT]

Steve

Don't hold your breath waiting for answers, still haven't seen the Judge only trials from the 1880s, so glad I didn't hold mine.

[John G]

Well, one good thing to come out of this thread is that I think we can now safely conclude that Pierre has not found him! Regrettably, such a quirky approach to research, i.e. rejecting the obvious and then subjectively reinterpreting the evidence to fit in with his own fanciful notions-a strategy that he has repeatedly adopted- would clearly preclude such a possibility.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;373403]

Hi Pierre,

Ah, you appear to be revealing yourself as a quasi-sociologist!

Hi John, no, I happen to hold a Master of Sociology. As one degree among others.

Regards, Pierre

[DJA]

Yet you know nothing of syndicated newspaper reporting.

Unbelievable!

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373537]

Hi John, no, I happen to hold a Master of Sociology. As one degree among others.

Regards, Pierre

Not entirely random question. Where are you from? Are you British or American? Or distinguished other?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Errata;373548]

Not entirely random question. Where are you from? Are you British or American? Or distinguished other?

Culturally I am from Greece and Denmark.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Yet you know nothing of syndicated newspaper reporting.

Unbelievable!

No. Statistics and French sociologists is my main interest within sociology.

[Pierre]

Dear Pierre

I have now asked you the same question several times:

[I]"1. Was the GSG written by the killer?.

How could I know?

if so it was aimed to put the blame on the local Jewish population.

That is an hypothesis saying that the motive of the killer was to blame the Jewish men, not the Jewish population.

1. Why would the killer blame Jewish men?

2. Why would the killer blame Jewish men and express the blame by murdering women?

3. Why would an extremely rare serial killer who mutilates women care about Jewish men?

4. Are there ANY explanations from 1888 or later that give good answers to these questions?

2. Was the GSG just local anti-Semitic graffiti and nothing to do with the murders.

Honestly I do not know, but I choose to believe the second option until someone proves otherwise.

Could you explain why neither of these options is plausible in your view?"

1. The double negation. If he was a Jew himself, he must have been able to spell the word Jew.

2. The rest of the text: No spelling errors.

3. The context of the text: Spitalfields, with probably more graffiti on other walls aimed at Jews. The killer could obviously both read and write. He would therefore have seen the word Jews when he was out on the streets, and would have been able to spell it from seeing the correct spelling. He would also have seen it in the newspapers.

4. There was a lot of antisemitism in the 1880s, in Spitalfields, as well as in other cities. It was a COMMON problem. The killer is not a COMMON person. He was an extremely rare person. He was even an extremely rare serial killer. Why would he be bothered with a COMMON problem like antisemitism?

5. A common antisemitic feeling in those days was not personal. The killer would obviously not have any personal problem with Jews and at the same time be a Jew himself. So I do think that the interpretations of Jack the Ripper as being antisemitic and blaming the Jews - and therefore murdering women - is in fact an antisemitic interpretation. The journalists and the police immediately thought of the Jews when they saw "Juwes" and immediately interpreted it wrong: "Jews". This interpretation is still out there and it is confirmed in the theory of Kosminski, for example.

And how good are explanations built on prejudice?

The end result may well be that you have several possibility left, all of which may have a problem, but which

cannot be fully dismissed by the available facts.

Facts are established by historians. They do not present themselves from nowhere.

One may favour a particular answer, as I do with the GSG, stated above.
However I do not know for sure this is the correct answer.

It is not a matter of mere taste.

This my friend is what you have not done!

You started this thread from the non objective viewpoint that the GSG as it stands is wrong,

Don´t try to say that there is any "objectivity" in science. Objectivity is a social construction. Even mathematics have rules made up by human beings, that is, social beings. I am NOT objective, and you are NOT.

of course it follows that if the GSG is wrong, then any theories about it must also be wrong.

No, am analysing the sources since there are known problems with them. If you love the sources and their inherent problems, you should continue to do what you are doing now: protect them. But if you prefere knowledge, you should question them and analyse them.

It does not matter what branch of science you work in:
That is not Objective science.

As I said: there is no "objective" science. Have you read Bourdieu´s Science of Science and Reflexivity? It would be of great help to you.

regards
Steve

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

I will make a few points here, you really are so entrenched in the position you hold, that you appear to believe there is only one approach.

Firstly in the English language at least, "men" can and was often used in less enlightened time to mean any persons; not just MEN.


Secondly and very importantly, you do not for one moment consider that the GSG may have had nothing to do with the murders, nothing you have written even considers it.

"Facts are established by historians. They do not present themselves from nowhere."

I disagree completely, that is the response of a philosopher, not an historian or a scientist. Facts may indeed be discovered by historians, who then may have to interpret them, if they need be, some will need no interpretation.

And yes they do present themselves sometimes:


FACT England won the football World Cup in 1966.
FACT the tournament was held in England.
FACT they have not won the trophy since.

RANDOM certainly! However these facts were not established by historians were they?


"Don´t try to say that there is any "objectivity" in science. Objectivity is a social construction. Even mathematics have rules made up by human beings, that is, social beings. I am NOT objective, and you are NOT. "


I am happy to admit I am not objective, But real science has to be.


"As I said: there is no "objective" science. Have you read Bourdieu´s Science of Science and Reflexivity? It would be of great help for you."


No Pierre that is your opinion.
In science we have controls, and have to record the method used and results obtained.
These results can then be peer reviewed and the science repeated to prove the results, this appears to be something you do not understand.

In the world of science, work takes place due to funding, if the application for funding is not objective you do not get the funding. so no science.

I Know this because I worked in science for 35 years, you are a sociologist and I assume a philosopher from what you have said, however you seem not to understand how science works.

Neither have I read the work you suggest, to the best of my knowledge Pierre Bourdieu was a sociologist and a philosopher. Not a scientist.


I note that you do not argue that your approach is Good science!

won't be replying on this thread again, just so boring, going nowhere.

regards

[Pierre]

Pierre

I will make a few points here, you really are so entrenched in the position you hold, that you appear to believe there is only one approach.

Firstly in the English language at least, "men" can and was often used in less enlightened time to mean any persons; not just MEN.

How interesting. In what contexts - do you have some examples perhaps?

Secondly and very importantly, you do not for one moment consider that the GSG may have had nothing to do with the murders, nothing you have written even considers it.

There were many moments when I did consider that. But I was forced to change my mind.

"Facts are established by historians. They do not present themselves from nowhere."

I disagree completely, that is the response of a philosopher, not an historian or a scientist. Facts may indeed be discovered by historians, who then may have to interpret them, if they need be, some will need no interpretation.

And yes they do present themselves sometimes:

Without a living, social agent? That is impossible, Steve.

FACT England won the football World Cup in 1966.
FACT the tournament was held in England.
FACT they have not won the trophy since.

England is a social construction (a social, national and economical union), football is a social construction (a "game"), the World Cup (a game and an institution) (and the capitals in the words) is a social construction, 1966 is a social construction (this whole time scale is).

You writing here about these "facts" is a social construction. You calling them facts and establishing them as facts is a social construction. The same goes for the other two examples.

This does not mean they are arbitrary. It means that the established "facts" are rooted in social structures and systems and are socially constructed by social agents, like yourself.

RANDOM certainly! However these facts were not established by historians were they?

"Don´t try to say that there is any "objectivity" in science. Objectivity is a social construction. Even mathematics have rules made up by human beings, that is, social beings. I am NOT objective, and you are NOT. "

I am happy to admit I am not objective, But real science has to be.

"Real science"? Science is changing over time and it is often revolutionized. Have you heard of paradigms?

"As I said: there is no "objective" science. Have you read Bourdieu´s Science of Science and Reflexivity? It would be of great help for you."

No Pierre that is your opinion.
In science we have controls, and have to record the method used and results obtained.

The controls are socially constructed.

These results can then be peer reviewed and the science repeated to prove the results, this appears to be something you do not understand.

Peer review is a social construction highly formalized and full of rules. The whole scientific process is. The rules are socially constructed.

In the world of science, work takes place due to funding, if the application for funding is not objective you do not get the funding. so no science.

And objectiveness is a symbolic capital which can be exchanged for money.

I Know this because I worked in science for 35 years, you are a sociologist and I assume a philosopher from what you have said, however you seem not to understand how science works.

The scientists themselves often have no idea of how subjective they are themselves and how biased their work is. Especially not within the natural sciences but this has been a big problem within the social sciences as well for a long time, actually, it still is.

Neither have I read the work you suggest, to the best of my knowledge Pierre Bourdieu was a sociologist and a philosopher. Not a scientist.

You have another definition of science, I hear. So what is the "science" you have been working in, Steve? And what makes you think it is more scientific than certain other sciences?

I note that you do not argue that your approach is Good science!
regards

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Pierre! You've become a sceptic! In that case you may compel me to invoke David Hume and the problem of induction. Of course, if Hume was correct we can safely dispense with statistical analysis, which I dare say is somewhat unfortunate for you as statistics seems to be your thing.

And you're a sociologist! Then perhaps I will invoke Karl Popper, who regarded sociology as a pseudoscience, i.e. because sociological ideas are not falsifiable.

In fact, maybe that's just what this thread needs: a philosophy debate!

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373537]

Hi John, no, I happen to hold a Master of Sociology. As one degree among others.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

You've actually revealed one of your qualifications! You know what, I think I shall reciprocate. My degree is Law and Politics, so perhaps, in the context of this thread, I will have to concede that your qualification may be slightly more relevant than mine- I do have a sociology qualification but I haven't studied the subject at degree level.

This is something I shall have ponder.

[MysterySinger]

I quote here from the attached link:

"others criticized Warren's hasty erasure of a potential clue, before it could be photographed. It was, after all, too late to stop the writing on the wall becoming common knowledge. Warren himself soon issued a statement that the word Juwes did not mean Jews in any known language, (earning the personal thanks of the chief Rabbi)".

http://www.dashinvaine.co.uk/warren%20page.htm

So Warren said that the word was Juwes and (in public at least) that it didn't mean Jews.