GSG xmas present

[Fisherman]

Well why do you think Pierre would understand it?

Reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line:

Ha! A child of four could do that. Get me a child of four, somebody!

[David Orsam]

Yes, a child of six can understand what you have written here.

Only in PierreWorld would there be a problem with this.

In PierreWorld, of course, the objective is to write posts that no-one of any age can understand.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;404344][QUOTE=Pierre;404335]

Please Pierre not back to this nonsense approach of arguing over what is a fact.
Last time it ended up with the suggestion that gravity would not exist if there was no one to report it.

You are arguing concepts rather the the universal constants.

Hi Steve,

Well, gravity is a socially constructed concept. Animals do not understand it. People do.

And of course, the concepts of "proof" and "truth" are even more problematical, since they are not what you would call "constants" but ever changing concepts.

Naturally, the concept of "Jack the Ripper" - compared to these concepts - is even more problematical!

I am sure you agree with me on this. And this is what I try to point out to David, who pretends that the concept of "proof" is nothing but a clear concept.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

QUOTE=Henry Flower;404336



Hi Henry,

Yes, the little crapweasel will tell you.

To "prove it" you must be able to establish "it" as an historical fact. And to be able to do this, you must:

1. Have many independent reliable and valid sources.

2. Be able to construct valid and reliable causal explanations, motive explanations and functional explanations from these sources.

3. Establish a coherent explanatory history on these sources.

Regards, Pierre

Ignoring for the moment that if we play your games then your definition of proof simply offers us more questions than answers ("historical fact" is a very troubling concept in the hands of a dissembler such as yourself), and moreover it reminds us how far you've taken your own thread off-topic to distract from the withering response and scorn your "present" received.

Remember, it was not David who introduced the idea of proof into this thread, it was you. You said you were trying to disprove your an theories, but could not do so. So please, tell us, using only your own definition, how would you disprove a theory?

[GUT]

Reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line:

Ha! A child of four could do that. Get me a child of four, somebody!

Even four would be a struggle for one person on these boards.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Henry Flower;404349

...then your definition of proof simply offers us more questions than answers ("historical fact" is a very troubling concept

That is what historians and social scientists have been discussing for decades now. And that is what I am telling you all. And it is what I am struggling with in this case.

It is also the most important issue for me in the case.

So please, tell us, using only your own definition, how would you disprove a theory?

Disproving = you find independent contradictory sources with high validity and reliability which give contradictory explanations.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Remember, it was not David who introduced the idea of proof into this thread, it was you. You said you were trying to disprove your an theories, but could not do so.

Absolutely right Henry, and it was Pierre who also told us in his first ever post in this forum that he knew what data was needed to "prove" who the killer was:

"I'm planning to go on with the research and I know what data I need to prove who the killer was." (thread: 'I think I have found him', post #1).

He hasn't found this data so, like I said at the outset, he is in a terrible quandary, not being able to either prove or disprove who the killer was.

He obviously didn't like me pointing out that he was in this awful state of intellectual uncertainly, hence the diversionary exercise he has created since then.

[GUT]

Absolutely right Henry, and it was Pierre who also told us in his first ever post in this forum that he knew what data was needed to "prove" who the killer was:

"I'm planning to go on with the research and I know what data I need to prove who the killer was." (thread: 'I think I have found him', post #1).

He hasn't found this data so, like I said at the outset, he is in a terrible quandary, not being able to either prove or disprove who the killer was.

He obviously didn't like me pointing out that he was in this awful state of intellectual uncertainly, hence the diversionary exercise he has created since then.

You, David, may be able to find the post where he promised that if he didn't get that last iota of data within, I think the time was, a year, he would leave the boards, I'd say his time's up and it's time for him to go.

[Pierre]

Absolutely right Henry, and it was Pierre who also told us in his first ever post in this forum that he knew what data was needed to "prove" who the killer was:

Do not pretend, David. I asked you for your definition. I have a definition for the concept.

I also have a definition for "disprove" as you can see.

You, on the other hand, accuses me for things you do not understand. What is "prove it" David?

[David Orsam]

You, David, may be able to find the post where he promised that if he didn't get that last iota of data within, I think the time was, a year, he would leave the boards, I'd say his time's up and it's time for him to go.

What he said on 23 September 2015 (some 15 months ago) was this:

"If I canīt give that answer conclusively by having the last piece of evidence in 12 months (Iīm not going to spend more time on it) you will get the theory and data here so you can try it yourselves."

Was that the truth? No, it was not.

[GUT]

What he said on 23 September 2015 (some 15 months ago) was this:

"If I canīt give that answer conclusively by having the last piece of evidence in 12 months (Iīm not going to spend more time on it) you will get the theory and data here so you can try it yourselves."

Was that the truth? No, it was not.

Has anything he posted been the truth?

Purely rhetorical question.

(Thanks, I was struggling to find it.)

[David Orsam]

What is "prove it" David?

Crikey, 15 months on the board and he still doesn't know what he has to do to prove who Jack the Ripper was.

No wonder he is no nearer to doing it now than he was back in September 2015.

[Henry Flower]

Do not pretend, David. I asked you for your definition. I have a definition for the concept.

I also have a definition for "disprove" as you can see.

You, on the other hand, accuses me for things you do not understand. What is "prove it" David?

Pierre, you are the one who introduced himself to the boards by stating you needed only a couple of slivers of further evidence to prove your case, so David's definition of the word is hardly our most pressing concern here, is it?

He is clearly correct, you have not been able to "prove" (by your own definition of the word) your case. Had you done so I'm sure we would not have been spared one of your typically grand announcements.

Incidentally, the tone of your first thread indicated that you were using the word "prove" in a somewhat legalistic rather than historical way. You made it sound as though the evidence was convincing already but a couple of clinching proofs were all that was required to sew the case up once and for all. And you still speak that way, constantly implying that if we just wait a while longer we will see the definitive solution finally revealed after a century and a quarter of speculation. (Sometimes the great historian sounds like the blurb on the back of a mass-market paperback, strange that!)

Well, Pierre, I'm sure I speak for many when I say that I'm not holding my breath. After your initial confidence it's sadly amusing one year later to see you distracting from your failures by demanding others provide their definitions of proof, or attacking people for not having your true historian's understanding of the word.

Attacking David Orsam's definition of the word "prove" does nothing to change the fact that your theory on the GSG is profoundly unconvincing, and your presentation of it typically cowardly and evasive.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;404348][QUOTE=Elamarna;404344]

Hi Steve,

Well, gravity is a socially constructed concept. Animals do not understand it. People do.

And of course, the concepts of "proof" and "truth" are even more problematical, since they are not what you would call "constants" but ever changing concepts.

Naturally, the concept of "Jack the Ripper" - compared to these concepts - is even more problematical!

I am sure you agree with me on this. And this is what I try to point out to David, who pretends that the concept of "proof" is nothing but a clear concept.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

Actually animals are aware of the planets George magnetic field. It is how migration functions.

They may not understand it. But it is there for them. They use it.


I think you will find that gravity as a physical force is constant in that it exists not just on this planet but in the universe. True the actual force is variable but not gravity itself.


And of course you are doing the very same in this post. Semantics rather than answers.



Steve

[Pierre]

What he said on 23 September 2015 (some 15 months ago) was this:

"If I canīt give that answer conclusively by having the last piece of evidence in 12 months (Iīm not going to spend more time on it) you will get the theory and data here so you can try it yourselves."

Was that the truth? No, it was not.

Hi David,

Thank you, I appreciate your effort.

I have found many sources since then.

So the question now is: Are they conclusive?

I am now working to answer this question.

And what we need is the right answer, donīt we, David?

Regards, Pierre