Objectivity

[Phil Carter]

Does objectivity in studying a crime case scenario mean that each individual crime should be studied as a separate event, whilst bearing any possible related crime in mind?

I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject.


Phil

[Errata]

Does objectivity in studying a crime case scenario mean that each individual crime should be studied as a separate event, whilst bearing any possible related crime in mind?

I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject.


Phil

This may sound facile, but I think that true objectivity means being able to interpret each crime as a separate event as well as part of any defined series. It is not something that leads to any obvious answers, and it makes "obvious" answers less obvious to the observer, but it's the method that leaves a person most flexible, and probably the most honest in terms of bias.

[Pierre]

Does objectivity in studying a crime case scenario mean that each individual crime should be studied as a separate event, whilst bearing any possible related crime in mind?

I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject.


Phil

Hi Phil,

Firstly, there is no such thing as "objectivity". (I recommend that you read Bourdieu´s Science of Science and Reflexivity".) But there are things, ideas and theories as well as science being objectified. So the question is:

What is the best objectified thinking for studying what you call a "crime case scenario"?

Secondly: What do you mean by that? If you mean the study of the murders of Jack the Ripper, the "crime case" is sources from the past. Nothing else. And to be able to construct a "scenario", you must refuse all the bad ideas and so called "theories" in ripperology and turn to the sources with your questions. They are the only ones that could give you an answer. The scenario is your history, the history you write, and it must be based on valid and reliable historical methods - if you do not prefer fiction, of course.

Thirdly: Since the sources are sources from the past, you need to use historical source criticism.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

To quote LP Hartley: "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." (LP Hartley, The Go-Between)

[GUT]

To quote LP Hartley: "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." (LP Hartley, The Go-Between)

Seems to be oft forgotten.

[Rosella]

Seems to be oft forgotten.

Yes, it does. Of course in many ways humans don't change. However the circumstances of our lives here in the 21st century are extraordinarily dissimilar from those of London slum dwellers of 128 years ago. The way people spoke, acted, worked, approached authority, etc, all different. As a history buff I find it extraordinarily fascinating.

I do think most members here are objective and do both examine each murder individually and as part of a series. You can see it in the way threads twist and turn. Someone may make a point about a particular aspect of Chapman's murder for example, then another poster will chime in with something about Nichols's killing as a contrast. Sometimes it leads to some very unexpected discussions, but that's part of the appeal of it all, isn't it?

[Mayerling]

Hi Phil,

Firstly, there is no such thing as "objectivity". (I recommend that you read Bourdieu´s Science of Science and Reflexivity").

Regards, Pierre

There is an interesting essay in Wikipedia on the life and thoughts of Pierre Bourdieu (1 August 1930 to 23 January 2002).

Jeff

[Billiou]

Firstly, there is no such thing as "objectivity".

Why would you state something in such a definitive way? Objectivity (ie being objective) is such a normal word to use in real life, much like the words subjective or subjectivity.....

Just wondering....

Note: When I entered "objectivity doesn't exist" into Google, one of the most interesting returns was: "Well, that depends on whether you're an existentialist, doesn't it?"

So, not being a philosopher myself, I suppose the details on the argument would go right over my head.

[miss marple]

Objectivity is very hard to define as so many things have to be considered.
The past IS a foreign country and the reason he ripper killings attracted so much attention was because of their uniqueness at the time and the creation of national press frenzy which anticipated 20h century serial killings. Then commonest kind of persistant murderer in the 19th century was a poisoner who murdered for gain.
Serial killing in the 20th century has almost become an industry, with serial killers aware of their publicity value,their need to feed publicity, their status in social history. This self consciousness affects their performances. The more attention they get the more they seek. The self awareness for personal fame or a place in history books could not have been present in Jack's mind due to the rarity of his crimes at the time. He was a very disturbed individual with a hatred of woman caused by some personal trauma? None of the letters sent to the press seem to have been written by him.
It is interesting to speculate whether the press coverage did affect his performance, by the time of the Mary Kelly murder. Was the violence of her body's destruction, a hint to the public of his infallilbility?

Miss Marple

[Pierre]

To quote LP Hartley: "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." (LP Hartley, The Go-Between)

Thanks for reminding people here about this. This is why we must let the sources kick back.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Billiou;377992]

Why would you state something in such a definitive way? Objectivity (ie being objective) is such a normal word to use in real life, much like the words subjective or subjectivity.....

Because science uses definitive tools, that is, common tools for measurement and interpretation which are systematic and intersubjective.

It is not a "normal word" in science, i.e. it is not a word from "common sense". But it is an academic word operationalizing concepts into instruments of measurement and into concepts for interpretations.

Note: When I entered "objectivity doesn't exist" into Google, one of the most interesting returns was: "Well, that depends on whether you're an existentialist, doesn't it?"

No, it depends on the producers of the word "objectivity" within the field of science where agents struggle for power over the concepts and over science, and thereby over the instruments of science, and thereby over the scientific field itself.

It also depends in on the struggle between social agents within the social field, where it is used to gain social power over the understanding of the world and over other social agents.

This is why the concept of objectivity can not be an "objective concept" and can never be understood from a point of view of objectivity.

The concept is a social construction, constructed as a result of an historical struggle between social agents.

So, not being a philosopher myself, I suppose the details on the argument would go right over my head.

Neither am I. I am just a simple sociologist and historian.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Phil Carter]

This may sound facile, but I think that true objectivity means being able to interpret each crime as a separate event as well as part of any defined series. It is not something that leads to any obvious answers, and it makes "obvious" answers less obvious to the observer, but it's the method that leaves a person most flexible, and probably the most honest in terms of bias.

Hi Errata

Thanks for your answer. Its a very fair point.


Phil

[Billiou]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378003]

Because science uses definitive tools, that is, common tools for measurement and interpretation which are systematic and intersubjective.

It is not a "normal word" in science, i.e. it is not a word from "common sense". But it is an academic word operationalizing concepts into instruments of measurement and into concepts for interpretations.



No, it depends on the producers of the word "objectivity" within the field of science where agents struggle for power over the concepts and over science, and thereby over the instruments of science, and thereby over the scientific field itself.

It also depends in on the struggle between social agents within the social field, where it is used to gain social power over the understanding of the world and over other social agents.

This is why the concept of objectivity can not be an "objective concept" and can never be understood from a point of view of objectivity.

The concept is a social construction, constructed as a result of an historical struggle between social agents.



Neither am I. I am just a simple sociologist and historian.

Kind regards, Pierre

Well, I will always take it to mean: striving (as far as possible or practicable) to reduce or eliminate biases, prejudices, or subjective evaluations by relying on verifiable data. And as a noun that means a lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice.

And leave it at that.

Cheers!