Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

logic

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

"Occam's Razor is another name for the principle of parsimony."

No, it isn't. The former is an ontological claim "Entia non sunt multiplicanda--sine necessitate." The latter is a logical claim.

Who could have perpetrated a hoax? Well, who had access to the DNA samples?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

explain

Hello Tom. Thanks.

Doubt it. Shall you tell him or . . . ?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

The full Monty

Hello Phil. Thanks.

I'll just say I have seen more serious science by Cleese, Idle, Jones and Palin than I have seen here.

Cheers.
LC

[dropzone]

Buy the book. (heh-heh)

Oy! Not ANOTHER furshlugginer book I have to buy! You people will drive me to the poor house, you will.

[GUT]

Hello Phil. Thanks.

I'll just say I have seen more serious science by Cleese, Idle, Jones and Palin than I have seen here.

Cheers.
LC

G'day Lynn

But they were serious dudes.

[mickreed]

G'day Lynn

But they were serious dudes.

Man, you speak de truth!

[mickreed]

G'day Hatchett

Didn't I just see a post from you criticizing Mick Reed for sarcasm.

Let 'im be, GUT.

Sarcasm's only a problem when you're on the receiving end.

[mickreed]

G'day Hatchett

Didn't I just see a post from you criticizing Mick Reed for sarcasm.

From Hatchett

You arent missed, Ben

From Ben:

Boohoo.

As Hatchett, said, GUT, this is a sensible debate.

[mickreed]

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

"Occam's Razor is another name for the principle of parsimony."

No, it isn't. The former is an ontological claim "Entia non sunt multiplicanda--sine necessitate." The latter is a logical claim.

There speaks the professional logician. Like me, he may talk brown stuff sometimes, but on this one, he's on the money.

[Theagenes]

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

"Occam's Razor is another name for the principle of parsimony."

No, it isn't. The former is an ontological claim "Entia non sunt multiplicanda--sine necessitate." The latter is a logical claim.

Who could have perpetrated a hoax? Well, who had access to the DNA samples?

Cheers.
LC

Now you're splitting hairs, Lynn. Effectively they are same thing.

"Enties should not be multiplied without necessity" or in other words you should have no more assumptions supporting your hypothesis than are necessary for it to possibly be correct. The simpler solution is generally preferable to the more complex one.

Edwards and Jari had access to the DNA samples. Do you think they are both in on this hypothetical hoax? Because according to both of them (Edwards in the book and Jari in his interview), the DNA was extracted from the shawl before the relatives submitted their samples. So for this hoax you are proposing to take place Jari would have to be in on it too. In the case of the DNA match with Kos's relative and the semen stain, David Miller would also have to be in on it.

Two world renown geneticists, experts in their areas of specialization, both professors at major universities, went along with a hoax like this, jeopardizing their careers, in order to help a guy who sells Ripper yo-yos sell a few books as well? Do you really think that's the simplest explanation?

[mickreed]

Now you're splitting hairs, Lynn. Effectively they are same thing.

"Enties should not be multiplied without necessity" or in other words you should have no more assumptions supporting your hypothesis than are necessary for it to possibly be correct. The simpler solution is generally preferable to the more complex one.

I don’t think it's a hoax either, but what's wrong with a bit of hair-splitting? Without it, most users of this forum wouldn't get up in the morning.

I'm not a logician - no, don't argue with me - but isn't the necessity bit important as well as the simplicity bit.

The essence of the point, in its proper context, is to start from the simplest possible explanation and make it more complex only if, and when, absolutely
necessary.

Which I think, supports the screw up over the conspiracy.
.

[MrBarnett]

If you had just opened a JTR gift shop in the East End, what would be the ideal publicity to promote your business:

An unchallengeable identification of Jack that destroyed all the mystery of the case; or a weak argument based upon initially sexy , but subsequently dubious science ?

MrB

[Krinoid]

Well that would take alot of work, seeing as it is a woman

Well I think it is

as was said to me earlier in this thread! prove it! LOL

[Krinoid]

Someone should just once and for all test the "item" scientifically to get its date and confirm what it is and then we go from there and subject it for second opinions. Then we never have to talk about it again.

[GUT]

Someone should just once and for all test the "item" scientifically to get its date and confirm what it is and then we go from there and subject it for second opinions. Then we never have to talk about it again.

G'day Krinoid

Considering no one hear owns it or controls it there's only one person who can do that.