Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly?

[GUT]

Well, if we breed dogs to act and look like cats, or if we define them as being cats, who knows.

Do remember that people believed in witches in the 17th Century and that people were executed for "being" witches.

Ummm scientists know by genetics. No matter what they may look or act like.

But I guess that's not a fact to a once great scientist like yourself

[GUT]

Is that a fact?

Is that a fact?

Can't be, as there are no facts.

And that's from the once great scientist, so it must be a fact.

Guess gravity isn't a fact either, or the fact that humans need oxygen, all non facts.

[Pierre]

My dear boy can you give me an example of a fact that has been tested and changed?

You will, for example, find the examples with Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Lyotard, Foucault and Bourdieu.

Geocentrism was regarded as a fact and Copernicus changed that.

Newton revolutionized old facts and developed them into a new scientific paradigm.

Einstein changed facts in physics with his theory of general relativity.

Lyotard changed historical and social facts with his theory of metanarratives and grand narratives.

Foucault changed the history of enlightenment and madness by analyzing old sources which was understood to describe neutral "facts".

Bourdieu used significance tests and correspondence analysis when he changed the old "facts" about how the social world works, constructing his field theory.

All of these researchers have changed old "facts" and created new ones. They have caused scientific revolutions and even paradigm shifts.

The problem is that it takes time for ordinary people to learn about the results of these revolutions. It is highly undemocratic, but a lot of people still do not know anything about this.

They still think that descriptions of things or abstract objects or other phenomena are "facts" not affected by humans.

That is also an historical problem.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Oh my dear boy, I asked you to provide me with an example of a fact that has been tested and changed but in geocentricism (which is the only purported fact in your post) you provided me with a theory.

Now do you have an example of a fact which has been tested and changed or don't you?

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, I asked you to provide me with an example of a fact that has been tested and changed but in geocentricism (which is the only purported fact in your post) you provided me with a theory.

Now do you have an example of a fact which has been tested and changed or don't you?

Donīt be silly.

[David Orsam]

Okay my dear boy, so we have learnt that not only can you not provide me with an example of a fact that has been tested and changed but you also don't know the difference between a fact and a theory.

[Pierre]

Okay my dear boy, so we have learnt that not only can you not provide me with an example of a fact that has been tested and changed but you also don't know the difference between a fact and a theory.

Okay my dear David, so we have learnt that not only can you not understand the provided examples of facts that have been tested and changed but you also don't know the ontological and methodological connections between a fact and a theory.

[David Orsam]

the provided examples of facts

So my dear boy, our knowledge increases as we discover you also don't know the difference between an example, singular, and examples, plural.

[David Orsam]

the ontological and methodological connections between a fact and a theory.

I wasn't asking you to provide an example of something connected to a fact, my dear boy, I was asking you to provide an example of a fact - one that has been tested and changed.

Your failure to do so has been duly noted.

[Bridewell]

You will, for example, find the examples with Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Lyotard, Foucault and Bourdieu.

Geocentrism was regarded as a fact and Copernicus changed that.

Newton revolutionized old facts and developed them into a new scientific paradigm.

Einstein changed facts in physics with his theory of general relativity.

Lyotard changed historical and social facts with his theory of metanarratives and grand narratives.

Foucault changed the history of enlightenment and madness by analyzing old sources which was understood to describe neutral "facts".

Bourdieu used significance tests and correspondence analysis when he changed the old "facts" about how the social world works, constructing his field theory.

All of these researchers have changed old "facts" and created new ones. They have caused scientific revolutions and even paradigm shifts.

The problem is that it takes time for ordinary people to learn about the results of these revolutions. It is highly undemocratic, but a lot of people still do not know anything about this.

They still think that descriptions of things or abstract objects or other phenomena are "facts" not affected by humans.

That is also an historical problem.

Pierre

None of these people changed facts. Copernicus, for example corrected the earlier perception that the sun revolved around the earth. The fact was as it always had been - that the earth revolved around the sun. Having got that off my chest, can we please get this thread back on topic. Was Joe Barnett's alibi accepted lightly? Clearly not as he was an obvious suspect for the Kelly murder.

[Varqm]

Clearly Barnett was suspected/a possible suspect,the police doing 4 hours of nterrogation/questioning.Joe Barnett comes in and is being questioned,the police knew nothing of this guy,a complete stranger.
Do you think they will just accept everything he says? Do you think,dealing with criminals,the police think/thought everybody is/was honest? If not what would be the way to get more info,the most recent info,about this person.We can infer from how they deal with victims,also people they did not know or very little if at all,and that is by visiting their last known lodging house or address and ask
the residents questions.Is there any other way? Practically speaking no.Maybe a crystal ball?And please don't suggest they had a dossier on Barnett.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Varqm;417231]

Clearly Barnett was suspected/a possible suspect,the police doing 4 hours of nterrogation/questioning.

Hi and thanks for your contribution. Do you happen to have a source for the statement about the 4 hours?

Joe Barnett comes in and is being questioned,the police knew nothing of this guy,a complete stranger.

Do you think they will just accept everything he says?

Probably not.

Do you think,dealing with criminals,the police think/thought everybody is/was honest?

Hardly.

If not what would be the way to get more info,the most recent info,about this person.We can infer from how they deal with victims,also people they did not know or very little if at all,and that is by visiting their last known lodging house or address and ask the residents questions.

Yes. And if Barnett said he had been asleep in a room, how do you think the police verified that?

Cheers, Pierre

[John Wheat]

Pierre stop pissing about and name your suspect.

[Bridewell]

Hi and thanks for your contribution. Do you happen to have a source for the statement about the 4 hours?

That was provided earlier in this thread by Wickerman.

[Wickerman]

Hello Pierre.
The source is The Penny Illustrated Paper, 17th Nov. 1888.

I went to the court, and there saw the police inspector, and told him who I was, and where I had been the previous night. They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally, finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free. Marie never went on the streets when she lived with me.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/penny_illustrated_press/18881117.html

Thankyou Colin, I had missed Pierre's question.