Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[David Orsam]

Some people like to hear the "truth", and some like fairy tales.

Like the GOGMAG letter predicting the identity of the next murder victim and her exact address?

What category would you include that particular story in? "Truth" or fairy tale?

[David Orsam]

Source criticism is not difficult when you know how to do it.

Oh that's good to know.

[Pierre]

In saying this, you demonstrate with great clarity that you don't understand other human beings nor how to make a compelling and convincing argument for other human beings to read and understand.

How very interesting. Are you claiming to be a psychologist now?

Some people like to hear the "truth", and some like fairy tales.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

With the greatest respect for the past, it is the only way to do it.

In saying this, you demonstrate with great clarity that you don't understand other human beings nor how to make a compelling and convincing argument for other human beings to read and understand.

[Pierre]

That is precisely why I'm saying it might be twice as difficult and provides a good example as to why the evidential standards cannot possibly be twice as high.

Source criticism is not difficult when you know how to do it.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

This raises an interesting question as to whether argument simply involves taking up a contrary position. Some people say that argument can be contradiction. Other say that it is an intellectual process involving a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition whereas contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. Some say it is, others say it isn't.

Anyway, I'm sorry, your five minutes is up and I'm not allowed to argue any more.

Trying to mend what is broken.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No, David. It might be "bizarre", but in the past they had living witnesses they could go back and talk to and they could visit suspects and murder sites - we have only sources made of paper!

That is precisely why I'm saying it might be twice as difficult and provides a good example as to why the evidential standards cannot possibly be twice as high.

[David Orsam]

I am not, and since you will not explain your motivations, I think that you are not able to argue for your idea.

This raises an interesting question as to whether argument simply involves taking up a contrary position. Some people say that argument can be contradiction. Other say that it is an intellectual process involving a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition whereas contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. Some say it is, others say it isn't.

Anyway, I'm sorry, your five minutes is up and I'm not allowed to argue any more.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;374084]

I think you must be trying to say that it's twice as difficult to solve a 127 year old murder. It's bizarre to say that the evidential standards are "twice as high". They are not, you just need to make a compelling case which convinces your readers

No, David. It might be "bizarre", but in the past they had living witnesses they could go back and talk to and they could visit suspects and murder sites - we have only sources made of paper!

With the greatest respect, you are never going to make a compelling case by referring to "source criticism" and various academic papers etc.

With the greatest respect for the past, it is the only way to do it.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

The evidential standards are twice as high since you first have to analyse rather old primary historical sources and then connect a killer in the past to the contents of them.

I think you must be trying to say that it's twice as difficult to solve a 127 year old murder. It's bizarre to say that the evidential standards are "twice as high". They are not, you just need to make a compelling case which convinces your readers.

With the greatest respect, you are never going to make a compelling case by referring to "source criticism" and various academic papers etc.

[Pierre]

In my opinion, this mystery will never be solved by recourse to probability theory: there are far too many variables to account for.

Hi John,

Variables can not be used methodologically for solving the case, since there is no way to test correlations. OK, we could make data sets from newspapers for example but that would not be useful for solving the case.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I'm happy enough with my post as it is Pierre.

I am not, and since you will not explain your motivations, I think that you are not able to argue for your idea.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I'm aware of that Pierre, but surely the evidential standards for proving that someone committed these murders are the same, or similar, no?

The evidential standards are twice as high since you first have to analyse rather old primary historical sources and then connect a killer in the past to the contents of them. But there can be no trial. So I do not use words from the legal system.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

So you have an opinion. But no one understands why, since you simply say "this isnīt true".

Can you elaborate on this?

I'm happy enough with my post as it is Pierre.

[John G]

In my opinion, this mystery will never be solved by recourse to probability theory: there are far too many variables to account for.