Tweet
thoughts
Hello Christer. Thanks.
“I would rather call it disappointed - and enlightened.”
Well, don’t feel offended, but, I too, am disappointed. I have spent many a happy time watching you whilst giving good reasons for Toppy not to be involved as a killer. And now . . .
Again, forgive me, but I am reminded of a line from “Forbidden Planet” ascribed to Dr. Morbius (Walter Pigeon). “My poor Krell! After a million years of shining sanity!”
Since logic dictates that the triumvirate of the scam, the name swop and the Cable Street address are all potentially very damning clues vis-a-vis Lechmere . . .”
Christer, old friend, as long as you continue to use this language, you will be able to see nothing else but his “guilt.” If I see some chap in a crowd and you ask me, “Who is that sinister looking chap?” I might search and claim I see no such. Then you might point and say, “There! Look there! See his sneer and that shifty eye? O, what dark deed is he contemplating, I wonder?” I might respond again in the same manner. But, at length, I might be prodded into thinking him actually dangerous.
Yet again, forgive me but I feel like I’m on one of those post-Impressionist threads where someone (Toulouse-Lautrec?) was being advocated as linked to the ripper. I made the silly mistake of asking why. It was pointed out to me that there was a mysterious red head in the painting (implication—MJK). I asked why mysterious? The reply, “Well, we don’t know her name.” But when I pointed out that such was true of all the characters in the painting, I was lambasted. I wisely left the thread, and allowed the post-Impressionist chap to stand or fall on the “market-place of ideas.” So far, he has few takers.
“ . . . my disappointment lies in your decision not to recognize this, whereas my enlightenment rest on the very same thing.”
In saying this, you inadvertently advocate an epistemological doctrine called “Doxastic Voluntarism.” Roughly, this is the doctrine that one believes what one chooses to believe, irrespective of one’s intellectual assessment of evidential value. (The opposing doctrine is “Doxastic Intellectualism.”)
Now, do you think that, by willing, I can suddenly say, “Ah, yes! Now I accept Cross as the slayer of five or more women.”? Well, I could say it, but that would be a definite lie, not merely a putative one—as with Cross. I simply don’t accept that he was a killer, at least, not at this time.
Two people see a 2D representation of stairs. One proclaims, “Ascending!”; the other avers, “Not a bit of it! They’re descending!” Is either dishonest or stupid? Maybe not. Perhaps each honestly holds to a position vis-à-vis the same optical illusion, and those positions differ.
Now, you see a blatant lie. I see a man using a name, one which, although possibly not in current use, was used in his behalf at one time. In my view this is tantamount to my using my middle name coupled with cognomen. Normally, I use Christian name with cognomen.
You see the motivation for this switch as his wish to avoid Mizen, and predicated on his having killed Polly. I see the motivation, also, as a wish to avoid Mizen, but predicated on his wish to avoid a troublesome state of affairs for a working bloke.
“If somebody is that determined to play down valuable evidence . . . “
But in thinking of it this way, you attribute a wrong motive. I wish the “evidence” to have WHATEVER value it ought (epistemic “ought”—not the ethical one) to have. Personally, I think it has enough to merit further investigation. Not, however, enough for me to declare, “Ah ha! It’s the Ripper!” And then throw in MJK, Liz, Tabram, Ada, and a host of others, merely because some modern social scientific (note the oxymoron involved in that?) theory claims that serial killers must have a practise period.
Now, of course I could try to be placative and fib about my beliefs. But to me, that would be a very insulting form of condescension. I treat others as adult theorisers and, if they cannot see why I believe what I believe, then I withdraw and wait for their further consideration. If it’s not forthcoming, well, that’s just how things doxastic work.
Again, I would be very sorry if you were offended. I in no way ask you to give up your speculation on Cross. Rather, I hope you to pursue it to its logical conclusion—up or down.
Cheers.
LC
Hello Christer. Thanks.
“I would rather call it disappointed - and enlightened.”
Well, don’t feel offended, but, I too, am disappointed. I have spent many a happy time watching you whilst giving good reasons for Toppy not to be involved as a killer. And now . . .
Again, forgive me, but I am reminded of a line from “Forbidden Planet” ascribed to Dr. Morbius (Walter Pigeon). “My poor Krell! After a million years of shining sanity!”
Since logic dictates that the triumvirate of the scam, the name swop and the Cable Street address are all potentially very damning clues vis-a-vis Lechmere . . .”
Christer, old friend, as long as you continue to use this language, you will be able to see nothing else but his “guilt.” If I see some chap in a crowd and you ask me, “Who is that sinister looking chap?” I might search and claim I see no such. Then you might point and say, “There! Look there! See his sneer and that shifty eye? O, what dark deed is he contemplating, I wonder?” I might respond again in the same manner. But, at length, I might be prodded into thinking him actually dangerous.
Yet again, forgive me but I feel like I’m on one of those post-Impressionist threads where someone (Toulouse-Lautrec?) was being advocated as linked to the ripper. I made the silly mistake of asking why. It was pointed out to me that there was a mysterious red head in the painting (implication—MJK). I asked why mysterious? The reply, “Well, we don’t know her name.” But when I pointed out that such was true of all the characters in the painting, I was lambasted. I wisely left the thread, and allowed the post-Impressionist chap to stand or fall on the “market-place of ideas.” So far, he has few takers.
“ . . . my disappointment lies in your decision not to recognize this, whereas my enlightenment rest on the very same thing.”
In saying this, you inadvertently advocate an epistemological doctrine called “Doxastic Voluntarism.” Roughly, this is the doctrine that one believes what one chooses to believe, irrespective of one’s intellectual assessment of evidential value. (The opposing doctrine is “Doxastic Intellectualism.”)
Now, do you think that, by willing, I can suddenly say, “Ah, yes! Now I accept Cross as the slayer of five or more women.”? Well, I could say it, but that would be a definite lie, not merely a putative one—as with Cross. I simply don’t accept that he was a killer, at least, not at this time.
Two people see a 2D representation of stairs. One proclaims, “Ascending!”; the other avers, “Not a bit of it! They’re descending!” Is either dishonest or stupid? Maybe not. Perhaps each honestly holds to a position vis-à-vis the same optical illusion, and those positions differ.
Now, you see a blatant lie. I see a man using a name, one which, although possibly not in current use, was used in his behalf at one time. In my view this is tantamount to my using my middle name coupled with cognomen. Normally, I use Christian name with cognomen.
You see the motivation for this switch as his wish to avoid Mizen, and predicated on his having killed Polly. I see the motivation, also, as a wish to avoid Mizen, but predicated on his wish to avoid a troublesome state of affairs for a working bloke.
“If somebody is that determined to play down valuable evidence . . . “
But in thinking of it this way, you attribute a wrong motive. I wish the “evidence” to have WHATEVER value it ought (epistemic “ought”—not the ethical one) to have. Personally, I think it has enough to merit further investigation. Not, however, enough for me to declare, “Ah ha! It’s the Ripper!” And then throw in MJK, Liz, Tabram, Ada, and a host of others, merely because some modern social scientific (note the oxymoron involved in that?) theory claims that serial killers must have a practise period.
Now, of course I could try to be placative and fib about my beliefs. But to me, that would be a very insulting form of condescension. I treat others as adult theorisers and, if they cannot see why I believe what I believe, then I withdraw and wait for their further consideration. If it’s not forthcoming, well, that’s just how things doxastic work.
Again, I would be very sorry if you were offended. I in no way ask you to give up your speculation on Cross. Rather, I hope you to pursue it to its logical conclusion—up or down.
Cheers.
LC
Comment