Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Occam’s Razor, or why I love the Ripper murders.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Occam’s Razor, or why I love the Ripper murders.

    Why I love the Ripper murders.

    Occam’s Razor paraphrased reads ‘that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.’

    This premise can at least be applied to, if not answer, almost every historical conundrum we face, E.g. In the Kennedy assassination, whether true or not, the single gunman theory requires far less assumptions than any of the conspiracy theories.

    There is no doubt that Begg, Fido, and Sugden have fought an uphill battle trying to apply this theory (if not in name, but in practice), to debunking one convoluted conspiracy theory, or cherry-picked hypothesis, after another.

    So why not apply Occam’s Razor to the Double Event and see what it gets us.

    We can conclude that in the midst of heightened security: expanded police patrols; cops dressed as unfortunates; anxious prostitutes first walking their prospects by local Bobbies; citizen gangs roaming the streets bent on revenge; and a populace whose unwritten rule is that no man should walk the streets alone lest he be attacked by a mob, the killer succeeds in attacking two separate victims, fifty minutes and a quarter mile apart.

    Or, we can conclude that amidst this heightened security, two separate killers, 50 minutes and a quarter mile apart, attack two prostitutes by pure coincidence.

    So which is it, a single killer with unbelievable stealth, or an unbelievable coincidence? In which argument do we make the fewest assumptions?

    That’s what I love about studying the Ripper murders; even Occam’s razor offers us no solace.

  • #2
    Ontologists R Us

    Hello Anthony. I think Ockham's Razor is more an ontological principle, dealing with entities, than an explanatory device. This sounds more like the Principle of Parsimony.

    One quick question to get started. Why do you believe that Liz and Kate were prostitutes, in particular, what makes you think they were soliciting (given that this is indeed your belief) when they were murdered?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • #3
      Lynn,

      I am not sure I agree that Occam’s Razor need be limited to natural concerns, and if it was not Occam’s original intent, I still believe the premise has value in worldly events today, and for that matter should be applied; I believe it is a good rule of thumb to follow when confronting conspiracy theories.

      In regards to Liz Stride and Catherine Eddowes being prostitutes, I really don’t hold an opinion, (I am aware of the counter argument regarding Eddowes, but I am ignorant regarding that argument for Stride. I thought it was accepted that Stride was a ‘working girl,’ My mistake there. )

      But when trying to discuss anything associated with these murders one runs into a problem regarding peripheral facts; there always seems to be an argument over ‘other facts’ that can digress an argument, making it difficult to focus on a particular point.

      Trying to protect against stating at least one disputed fact while making a different point seems an almost impossible task when dealing with the Ripper murders; or at least trying to create such protection tends to result in profoundly long, digressing, compound, sentences. [smile]

      Therefore I sometimes accept one argument over another regarding extraneous facts when trying to get to a conclusion; certainly a weak method of history, but with the Ripper murders, almost unavoidable.

      In the particular, whether they were unfortunates or not (I feel) is not pertinent to the point I was trying to make (even if the argument is not embraced). Whether I had stated ‘two prostitutes’ or ‘two women’ would not have altered the (joyful) frustration I was trying to convey.

      Anthony

      P.S. I had to look up Parsimony. You might want to dumb down your word choice when writing me. [Teasing, I always enjoy learning.]

      Comment


      • #4
        In an age where husband-less women sometimes had very few options, Liz Stride was clearly an "occasional" prostitute...(at least one of my own great great grandmothers, described in the 1891 census as a hawker was apparently of this ilk)...it's no great stigma...people did what they had to, just to survive. When she could, Liz clearly earned money by cleaning, and only when she couldn't she whored...

        However, Catherine Eddowes may be a different kettle of fish altogether...I haven't seen any evidence so far that she was on the game...I think in that respect I'm in accord with Lynn

        It's all too easy to fall into the trap of accepting modern stereotypes

        All the best

        Dave

        Comment


        • #5
          evidence

          Hello Anthony. Thanks.

          I agree: much of the evidence is inconclusive or even contradictory.

          Cheers.
          LC

          Comment


          • #6
            stereotypes

            Hello Dave.

            "However, Catherine Eddowes may be a different kettle of fish altogether...I haven't seen any evidence so far that she was on the game...I think in that respect I'm in accord with Lynn."

            Thanks.

            "It's all too easy to fall into the trap of accepting modern stereotypes."

            It is indeed.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by APerno View Post
              So why not apply Occam’s Razor to the Double Event and see what it gets us.
              Hi Anthony.

              Well, Occam's Razor would require us to believe the man (witness, Schwartz) who assaulted Stride was her killer.

              Description:
              "age about 30, ht. 5ft 5in. Comp. Fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands."


              It would also require us to accept that the man (witness, Lawende) seen with the woman at Church Passage was Eddowes killer.

              Description:
              "a man, age 30, height 5ft 7 or 8in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap, with peak of the same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor."

              Occams Razor might also require us to accept two murders committed so close in time and geography were perpetrated by the same man.

              So now we ask Occam if we are also required to accept a 5' 5'', man with broad shoulders and a black peaked cap, is the same as the 5' 7'' man of medium build with a grey peaked cap.

              At what point does the razor begin to go dull...?

              Regards, Jon S.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                In an age where husband-less women sometimes had very few options, Liz Stride was clearly an "occasional" prostitute...(at least one of my own great great grandmothers, described in the 1891 census as a hawker was apparently of this ilk)...it's no great stigma...people did what they had to, just to survive. When she could, Liz clearly earned money by cleaning, and only when she couldn't she whored...

                However, Catherine Eddowes may be a different kettle of fish altogether...I haven't seen any evidence so far that she was on the game...I think in that respect I'm in accord with Lynn

                It's all too easy to fall into the trap of accepting modern stereotypes

                All the best

                Dave
                I just have to say, I love the fact that you have a great grandmother was a professional "hawker." That is a hoot! Do you have any idea what she hawked?

                My paternal grandmother (Italian side) was a palm and tarot card reader, and sometime pimp. She ran Lena’s Tea House for over thirty years in Paterson New Jersey. Never once got buster, she could smell an undercover cop forty feet away. (Tea leaf reading was legal; palm and card reading were not.) In the 1930s, my Dad, as a child, use to sit in her front room keeping the old Irish women company as they took turns in the back room. I, many years later in the early 1960s, when my father would drop me off on his way to the racetrack, filled the same role. I always looked forward to those weekends; was bribed with much candy, and without Dad having to tell me, knew not to mention to Mom where I had been.

                Anthony

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think the problem with applying any kind of rigorous methodology to the Whitechapel killings is that it results in the inevitable conclusion that we don't really know anything, and that all of are beliefs beyond "this person died, this other person said this to the police" are just educated speculation based on subjective assumptions.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi Anthony

                    I just have to say, I love the fact that you have a great grandmother was a professional "hawker." That is a hoot! Do you have any idea what she hawked?
                    It was a great great grandmother. The census return reads simply "Hawker"... a common enough occupation...just an onstreet seller of goods...

                    My information regarding her other status was from an unguarded comment by a great aunt, long since deseased, but as she was off on a separate branch of the tree, I'm not sure how she'd know (unless the families knew each other, or there was later family talk)...

                    All the best

                    Dave

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re the Razor, we can say that Liz Stride was murdered by someone. We can if we want say that Liz Stride was murdered by someone who owned a cat called Fred and a budgie called Griselda. But there is no evidence for the cat and the budgie - these animals serve no explanatory function. So while it may, for all we know, be true that the murderer owned these pets, there is no need to assume it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ROBERT!!!!!!!!!!! taken me an age to get back in here!!!
                        Right where were we............
                        xx

                        Now can't get back to Casebook Main grrrrrrrrrrrrr
                        Last edited by Suzi; 01-05-2013, 03:37 PM.
                        'Would you like to see my African curiosities?'

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Ah, Suzi! Good to see you once more.

                          Where were we? You were about to finish your ablative absolutes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Robert View Post
                            Ah, Suzi! Good to see you once more.

                            Where were we? You were about to finish your ablative absolutes.
                            Crazy this cb won't let me open the page etc etc Grrrrrr.......Bugger! having to put my prep to one side to sort this!!
                            'Would you like to see my African curiosities?'

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OK seem to have got cb to talk to my new Window's 7 malarcky!!
                              'Would you like to see my African curiosities?'

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X