GSG xmas present

[David Orsam]

I donīt know if I am finished and if I can conclusively confirm it at this point. I may be. I am validating the sources and the results.

To save Pierre time, the inevitable result of his validation exercise can be found right here:

drum roll...

klaxon....

INVALID

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Henry Flower;404393]

Thank you David. I presume, though I can't be sure, that Pierre will not dispute any of these sources.

Pierre, given that proof has suddenly become a very fluid social construct,

Not suddenly, Henry. The concept has a long history and historians and social scientists have been studying it for a long time.

let me ask you for a clear answer: what did you mean when you said you could perhaps "conclusively confirm" that your alleged suspect is the killer? If truth is a problematic construct, how on earth would you ever conclusively confirm such a thing?

The historically established fact that historically established facts are socially constructed does not mean that knowledge is impossible. It only means that there are high standards for calling something "knowledge" and that these standards are reached through scientific methods.

These methods consist of internal and external source criticism in the discipline of history. They are not a matter of total relativism or postmodernistic subjectivism, and the methods of science shall not be mixed up with the products of science. As an historian I always use the methods to analyze my own historical products. The methods give us the possibility of distinguishing an historically established fact with high validity and reliability from such a fact with low validity and reliability.

[Henry Flower]

Thanks, David. That is correct, as I said: "When I am finished with this" and "can conclusively confirm".

I donīt know if I am finished and if I can conclusively confirm it at this point. I may be. I am validating the sources and the results.

If I was to decide on being finished right now and being able to conclusively confirm, I am afraid at this stage I would probably have to confirm who the killer was.

So it may not be the best time to decide on doing so.

Regards, Pierre

What are you doing to validate the sources Pierre? How much "validating" do your sources require?

I thought you found them all in "the archives", so I presume they need very little validation from you.

And one more time, does "conclusively confirm" mean the same as "prove"?

[Pierre]

Pierre, 6 October 2015:

"perhaps I donīt know his identity. But I can assure you Graham that you will get the results when Iīm finished with this."

Pierre, 7 October 2015:

"I need to finish this off and after that I can tell you who he is or who I thought he was."

Pierre, 9 October 2015:

"When I get the last piece of data and can conclusively confirm that he is the killer or the opposite, I will let you know."

Pierre, 13 October 2015:

"I wish I could tell you where this evidence is being held but I canīt. You will get to know when Iīm finished with it. You can be quite sure of that."

Thanks, David. That is correct, as I said: "When I am finished with this" and "can conclusively confirm".

I donīt know if I am finished and if I can conclusively confirm it at this point. I may be. I am validating the sources and the results.

If I was to decide on being finished right now and being able to conclusively confirm, I am afraid at this stage I would probably have to confirm who the killer was.

So it may not be the best time to decide on doing so.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, 6 October 2015:

"perhaps I donīt know his identity. But I can assure you Graham that you will get the results when Iīm finished with this."

Pierre, 7 October 2015:

"I need to finish this off and after that I can tell you who he is or who I thought he was."

Pierre, 9 October 2015:

"When I get the last piece of data and can conclusively confirm that he is the killer or the opposite, I will let you know."

Pierre, 13 October 2015:

"I wish I could tell you where this evidence is being held but I canīt. You will get to know when Iīm finished with it. You can be quite sure of that."

Thank you David. I presume, though I can't be sure, that Pierre will not dispute any of these sources.

Pierre, given that proof has suddenly become a very fluid social construct, let me ask you for a clear answer: what did you mean when you said you could perhaps "conclusively confirm" that your alleged suspect is the killer? If truth is a problematic construct, how on earth would you ever conclusively confirm such a thing?

Or is this sudden resort to fluid constructs your way of cushioning the blow for yourself when your suspect and your sources are revealed, studied for a few hours, thoroughly refuted, and forgotten?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;404373][QUOTE=Elamarna;404371][QUOTE=Pierre;404348]

Steve,

Are they aware of the concept?

And why did the concept emerge when the instruments of measurement were invented?



Physical forces are socially constructed descriptions in formulas. Formulas are social constructions.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

Such lack of knowledge of physical science approach truly illustrates your limitations on such subjects.

Are they aware you ask. Their brains respond to the force and the variations in it.

Are they aware of it consciously. Who know . Not being able to communicate with them makes your question pointless.
It effects them therefore it exists.


The instruments began simple because some material always point in a certain direction.

Yes north and south are certainly social construct
However materials which point to a constant direction are not.



No pierre you are wrong the social constructs are the way man tries to describe these natural forces.

The names used are themselves constructs I agree. But the physical forces themselves still exist.

We have been here before with your argument if there are no people to record there are no forces.

Can I thank you for pointing out that animals use these forces and thus they do exist without man.



Steve

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, this thread concerned your Xmas gift, an amusing reinterpretation of the GSG based on sources you were not prepared to share.

It was derided as baseless gibberish unsupported by any sources. And so you are arguing about gravity and the concept of proof.

If you could see yourself as others see you you'd realise how foolish you are looking right now. An embarrassment to the noble profession of historian.

[David Orsam]

Pierre, 6 October 2015:

"perhaps I donīt know his identity. But I can assure you Graham that you will get the results when Iīm finished with this."

Pierre, 7 October 2015:

"I need to finish this off and after that I can tell you who he is or who I thought he was."

Pierre, 9 October 2015:

"When I get the last piece of data and can conclusively confirm that he is the killer or the opposite, I will let you know."

Pierre, 13 October 2015:

"I wish I could tell you where this evidence is being held but I canīt. You will get to know when Iīm finished with it. You can be quite sure of that."

[Pierre]

Anyway, it's not just the sources that are important, but whether they are interpreted sensibly, rather in a way which is favourable to a particular agenda.

Indeed that is how ripperology looks.

[John G]

I prefer searching for sources.

But that isn't getting you anywhere; it's simply getting you stressed. Anyway, it's not just the sources that are important, but whether they are interpreted sensibly, rather in a way which is favourable to a particular agenda.

[Pierre]

Have you tried deep breathing exercises?

I prefer searching for sources.

[John G]

QUOTE=David Orsam;404376



On the contrary. I am in a dreadful state of certainty.

And when I am trying to get out of it, it gets worse.

Have you tried deep breathing exercises?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;404376

What a dreadful state of uncertainty to be in...

On the contrary. I am in a dreadful state of certainty.

And when I am trying to get out of it, it gets worse.

[David Orsam]

I have found many sources since then.

Do we know if Pierre has yet managed to prove his suspect is Jack the Ripper?

Yes we do. He hasn't.

Because on 25 September 2015 he said:

"I would share my findings with everyone if I considered my research finished."

He hasn't shared his findings so he cannot consider his research to be finished which means he hasn't been able to find that "final piece of evidence that is needed" (to use his own words).

As he said on 26 September 2015:

"My own problem right now is that I feel sure of this theory but I know I can still be wrong."

What a dreadful state of uncertainty to be in more than 15 months later.

[Pierre]

Whenever I've raised the concept of legal proof on this forum with Pierre he's always replied by saying, "we are not in a courtroom". Strange then that he now asks if proof is a judicial concept.

Not strange. I am asking you if that is your definition.