Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;403532]Hi Pierre,

But you stated "But the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same." (Post, 234.)

However, you can't possibly know that, unless you have unequivocal proof
of who the murderer is, something you claim not to have.

Hi John,

I am analyzing and validating the data right now and the results are in a process of stabilization.

What you call unequivocal proof may be present. I am validating this and am still looking at some new sources.

Logically, the best you can say is, "the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly is the same if my theory turns out to be correct, which it might not ben"

I do not have what you call a "theory".

All I have is sources and hypotheses.

And I do not work with the word "if". I work with the words what, why and how.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Yes, indeed, John, what he surely meant to say (as I pointed out to him in October when he made a similar unqualified statement in the PC Long rag thread) was "I think the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same".

Kind of ironic considering that less than a fortnight ago when Patrick summarised his first post as "I have found him", Pierre corrected him by saying: "Patrick, you forgot the word "think"."

He then proceeded to forget the word "think" himself in virtually every statement he posted on this forum!

David.

Scientific theory is one of my main interests. The differences between knowing and thinking are included in that interest. You do not know what I think and how I define that concept or what I know and how I define knowledge. I am what you could call a structuralistic constructivist but I am not a total relativist, rather I am in the tradition of Ranke.

So do not put words in my mouth and do not lie, as you do here, about what I remember.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Is anyone able to translate the above post into English for me?

[Pierre]

Is anyone able to translate the above post into English for me?

If you do not even know academic concepts in plain English you should do someting to learn it before you try do debate.

[David Orsam]

Seriously, if anyone here is fluent in Overblown Gibberish could they please translate Pierre's post into English for me so that I can understand what he is talking about.

[Joshua Rogan]

I am in the tradition of Ranke.

I'm pretty sure this line explains everything...

[Pcdunn]

Here's a stab at it...

Seriously, if anyone here is fluent in Overblown Gibberish could they please translate Pierre's post into English for me so that I can understand what he is talking about.

Pierre used the phrase "structural constructivist" to describe his viewpoint. I knew constructivism was a term in both philosophy and art, and guessed Pierre was being philosophical rather than artistic.

A moment's research found out that "Constructivism" is a school of philosophy particularly concerned with the theory of education and the nature of knowledge. This may explain his (over)use of the words "think" and "know" in his post.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cons...y_of_education)

If I find anything on the name Ranke, I'll get back to you...
All right, Leopold Von Ranke was a German historian who believed in source-based history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke

[David Orsam]

So does he know the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was "the same" or does he just think it was?

[Pcdunn]

Good question...

So does he know the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was "the same" or does he just think it was?

Excellent question. I believe that he thinks he knows the motive, based upon a historical source he has uncovered in "archives", which we don't have access to, most likely because he has guarded the identity of his suspect from us for over one year.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;403548]

Hi Pierre,

But you stated "But the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same." (Post, 234.)


Hi John,

I am analyzing and validating the data right now and the results are in a process of stabilization.

What you call unequivocal proof may be present. I am validating this and am still looking at some new sources.



I do not have what you call a "theory".

All I have is sources and hypotheses.

And I do not work with the word "if". I work with the words what, why and how.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

So in other words you don't have actual knowledge of anything.

[John G]

Yes, indeed, John, what he surely meant to say (as I pointed out to him in October when he made a similar unqualified statement in the PC Long rag thread) was "I think the motive for murdering Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was the same".

Kind of ironic considering that less than a fortnight ago when Patrick summarised his first post as "I have found him", Pierre corrected him by saying: "Patrick, you forgot the word "think"."

He then proceeded to forget the word "think" himself in virtually every statement he posted on this forum!

Thanks David. Of course, he can't claim to have actual knowledge of the killer, because if he does then there's no reason not to name his suspect. I would, however, hypothesize that he sometimes forgets this important fact, hence his somewhat convoluted, and confusing, reply to me.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;403568]

Hi Pierre,

So in other words you don't have actual knowledge of anything.

How quick you loose your patience, John.

[John G]

David.

Scientific theory is one of my main interests. The differences between knowing and thinking are included in that interest. You do not know what I think and how I define that concept or what I know and how I define knowledge. I am what you could call a structuralistic constructivist but I am not a total relativist, rather I am in the tradition of Ranke.

So do not put words in my mouth and do not lie, as you do here, about what I remember.

Pierre

Ranke? But in essence, doesn't that just mean that you believe in the importance of primary source material? And has anyone on here disputed that?

Just out of interest, didn't Ranke argue that historical research can never be truly objective because the choice of source material is a subjective one? In any event, that certainly seems to apply in your case- maybe, therefore, you should pay regard to your own philosophical/ academic influences! Just a thought...

[David Orsam]

Excellent question. I believe that he thinks he knows the motive, based upon a historical source he has uncovered in "archives", which we don't have access to, most likely because he has guarded the identity of his suspect from us for over one year.

It reminds me of what he said in the 'Pierre and his research' (#9) thread back on 28 October 2015:

"It has been a terrible thing at times just sitting here, knowing that I might have found the Whitechapel killer and not being able to talk about it."

As I said to him in response (#10)

"Forgive me Pierre, but if you have been sitting there knowing that might have found the Whitechapel killer then you must also have been sitting there knowing that you might not have found the Whitechapel killer.

Has this knowledge, that you might not have found him, also been a terrible thing for you?"

His answer (#11) was:

"Well, that is what I still hope for because then I wouldn´t have to tell everybody of a killer nobody will be happy hearing about. So I hope I am wrong."

I wonder if the concept of knowing that one might or might not have found something is structuralistic constructivism in the tradition of Ranke.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;403572]

How quick you loose your patience, John.

I was simply making a factual observation, Pierre, based upon primary source material, i.e. your own posts on this Board, so I don't see why you should object to that seeing as though you view your approach as being in the tradition of Ranke. And don't you mean "lose" not "loose"