GSG xmas present

[Henry Flower]

One does have to feel sorry for Pierre, though.

I haven't had cause to say this very often, David, but you are completely wrong there. It'll be a cold day in hell before I feel sorry for that pompous ass.

[Henry Flower]

Yesterday I found a source confirming the already known problem as early as in May 1888.

Pierre, answer me this: what do you expect members of this forum to take from that comment? Do you think it's tantalising? Do you think it will pique our curiosity? Do you think it leaves us wanting to know more?

It leaves me thinking you are a mentally ill posturing douche who should really go away and get a life.

A year and a quarter ago you claimed to need only a couple of things more to be able to provide conclusive confirmation that your suspect was the killer. You have claimed many times since, many times, to have been busy uncovering or discovering source after source after source. So let me ask you this also?

It's a yes or a no: Have you conclusively confirmed that your suspect is the ripper or not? If not, why not? If not, what makes you think you ever will? There are not an infinite number of sources for you to uncover, after all.

And if not, what exactly was wrong with David pointing that out?

[David Orsam]

One does have to feel sorry for Pierre, though, desperately trying to convince us that he's analyzing the the sources to find out whether he has managed to conclusively confirm the identity of Jack the Ripper, rather than admit that the last 15 months have been a complete waste of time.

It's so much easier for him to say that he hasn't been able to disprove his theory, as if that's almost the equivalent of proving it.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;404432]

trying to convince us that he's sifting through the sources

No, I do not "sift through the sources". I analyze them. And I find new ones.

Yesterday I found a source confirming the already known problem as early as in May 1888.

[Harry D]

I really do not understand why people get so hot under the collar over our dear friend Pierre. Ok if he attacks you as an individual I do.

There are two approaches, ignore him which NO ONE does for long. And he will not go away I am sure of that.what ever his reasons, he is not a pure windup merchant.

The other alternative is to treat him seriously and expose the failings in the arguments he makes.
That is the approach I have generally taken as have several others.

If others do not want to partake in the debates with Pierre it's really very simple. DON'T.

That would be all well and good if Pierre's claptrap was confined to his own threads, but unfortunately it spills into other discussions and infects them.

[John G]

One does have to feel sorry for Pierre, though, desperately trying to convince us that he's sifting through the sources to find out whether he has managed to conclusively confirm the identity of Jack the Ripper, rather than admit that the last 15 months have been a complete waste of time.

It's so much easier for him to say that he hasn't been able to disprove his theory, as if that's almost the equivalent of proving it.

I'm not even sure that he even remembers what is theory is anymore.

[John G]

Indeed that is how ripperology looks.

Which once again demonstrates that you don't really understand the concept of irony.

[David Orsam]

One does have to feel sorry for Pierre, though, desperately trying to convince us that he's sifting through the sources to find out whether he has managed to conclusively confirm the identity of Jack the Ripper, rather than admit that the last 15 months have been a complete waste of time.

It's so much easier for him to say that he hasn't been able to disprove his theory, as if that's almost the equivalent of proving it.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;404410]

Pierre

do you really not comprehend the difference between the terms man uses to describe things(social constructs) and the physical conditions themselves(construct names such as gravity, light, heat, cold) that allow all things to exist.

steve

Yes, I do. That difference is a social construction too.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;404407]

!

Pierre

do you really not comprehend the difference between the terms man uses to describe things(social constructs) and the physical conditions themselves(construct names such as gravity, light, heat, cold) that allow all things to exist.


steve

[David Orsam]

Pierre, 18 September 2015:

"I need a small piece of data to have conclusive evidence."

Strange that it's taking him so long to be able to work out if he now has this "small piece of data".

Perhaps he doesn't know what "conclusive evidence" means and he's looking for a dictionary.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;404405]

ok that term itself is a construct, but not the forces it describes

!

[Elamarna]

Steve,

What I point to here is the socially constructed concept. You say: "It effects them therefore it exists."

But how it is said to exist and why and what it is called, that is a set of socially constructed concepts, constructed by humans in the fields of science.

None of that matters.
If there were no humans, but just the animals, it still has a physiological effect on them. that is all that matters.

iI just demonstrates the feeling of insecurity that some in social sciences have in thinking they can deny that which actual occurs.

You can compare it to periods in history when the church defined the world. If bad things happened, they happened because of the sin of man or the devil. These concepts are socially constructed concepts as well.

No Pierre, that is talking about spiritual belief, which are unprovable, you believe or you do not.

Nice try to divert, but like normal it fails.

The two are not the same.

And here we discuss that the C-5 were murdered in 1888 and we explain it with "Jack the Ripper". He is also a socially constructed concept.

Indeed, he may not exist as such, as an individual.

however yes it is a term used by us to cover a period of killings in 1888 London and the supposed murderer, there is no link to the laws of nature.

(ok that term itself is a construct, but not the forces it describes)



Steve

[Henry Flower]

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


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.

I said "suddenly" because you spoke of proving your theory a year ago, but when David Orsam your nemesis mentioned your failure to prove it, you suddenly got all tetchy about definitions of proof and truth. Hence my ironic use of "suddenly" - a reference to the fact that it is ok for you to throw words like prove and disprove around, but somehow problematic when your opponent does. One more example of your double standards and hypocrisy.

Oh, and by the way, you're not a historian. Until you provide a shred of evidence, you're not a historian any more than I am.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;404392][QUOTE=Pierre;404373][QUOTE=Elamarna;404371]

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

Steve,

What I point to here is the socially constructed concept. You say: "It effects them therefore it exists."

But how it is said to exist and why and what it is called, that is a set of socially constructed concepts, constructed by humans in the fields of science.

You can compare it to periods in history when the church defined the world. If bad things happened, they happened because of the sin of man or the devil. These concepts are socially constructed concepts as well.

And here we discuss that the C-5 were murdered in 1888 and we explain it with "Jack the Ripper". He is also a socially constructed concept.

Regards, Pierre