Luckily I am not one of those who pontificates on the misuse of English (or typos) - but I meant to say 'shout' and not 'should'.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Colin Roberts View Post"If, as the book is claiming, Catherine Eddowes was one of approximately twenty Londoners living in 1888, that could have deposited the strand of mtDNA that was extracted from a presumably apparent blood stain on the 'shawl'; then there is a distinct possibility that the garment was in Mitre Square on the morning of 30 September, 1888, regardless of its exclusion from the historical record."
A renowned expert has apparently made a sophomoric error. That shouldn't give rise to feelings of vindication or inclinations to chortle.
My celebrations are always less than exuberant whenever the other side scores an own goal.Mick Reed
Whatever happened to scepticism?
Comment
-
Originally posted by robhouse View PostI am not sure who, if anyone, actually said that. Perhaps you can post some quotes.
I may have said something like "provenance means nothing since IF her DNA is on the shawl"... which I still stand by.
RH
Chris researched this objectively until he found an answer. Others sought to show lack of substance to the family story but that could never over-ride the science as it stood.
Some people plain refused to entertain that the science or experts involved could have made a mistake and suggested we non experts should stop trying to find fault with the claims and I think maybe it is those people Mick was originally referring to?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Debra A View PostSome people plain refused to entertain that the science or experts involved could have made a mistake and suggested we non experts should stop trying to find fault with the claims and I think maybe it is those people Mick was originally referring to?
One example was a lady who expounded at huge length how outrageous we all were for doubting JL. She was not alone.Last edited by mickreed; 10-20-2014, 05:26 AM.Mick Reed
Whatever happened to scepticism?
Comment
-
The Washington Post has now picked up on the Independent's story.
Report: How the scientist who ‘unmasked’ Jack the Ripper made a ‘serious’ error
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chris View PostThe Washington Post has now picked up on the Independent's story.
Report: How the scientist who ‘unmasked’ Jack the Ripper made a ‘serious’ error
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...serious-error/Mick Reed
Whatever happened to scepticism?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chris View PostThe Washington Post has now picked up on the Independent's story.
Report: How the scientist who ‘unmasked’ Jack the Ripper made a ‘serious’ error
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...serious-error/
RH
Comment
-
Originally posted by robhouse View PostI love how this article claims the debunking was largely the work of the Independent!
RH
Without them, the debunking wouldn't have been heard beyond our forums.
Having said that, I'm sure that's not what the writer meant.Mick Reed
Whatever happened to scepticism?
Comment
-
Originally posted by mickreed View PostIt took Chris Phillips, in the main, to prove that an own goal had been scored by 'the other side'. Without his input, the referee wouldn't even have noticed a goal had been scored. I think that's worth some quiet satisfaction at least.
I agree.
Chris provided the goal-line technology.
But the spectators that refused to entertain any suggestion that perhaps the shawl had been in Mitre Square on the morning of 30 September, 1888, have not been vindicated. They have not been proven to have been correct, in any way, shape or form.Last edited by Colin Roberts; 10-20-2014, 07:01 AM.
Comment
-
Around the World - in 24 hours
Originally posted by Chris View PostThe Washington Post has now picked up on the Independent's story.
Report: How the scientist who ‘unmasked’ Jack the Ripper made a ‘serious’ error
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...serious-error/
I wonder how the publisher's PR machine will respond?
And well done Chris and Co.
cheers, gryff
Comment
-
Originally posted by lynn cates View Postlogic trumps science--always.
Did Aristotle sneer at Science?
I trust you don't believe, Lynn, that the 'science' of DNA analysis has somehow been trumped?
One 'scientist' has seemingly made a very careless error.
Do such things never occur in the field of Philosophy?
Comment
Comment