Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Let there be light!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by John G View PostHello Pierre,
No, what I'm saying is that scientific facts don't change over time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostHello Pierre,
No, what I'm saying is that scientific facts don't change over time. Thus, the world has always been spherical, even at a time when the ancients believed it to be flat. Equally, rigor mortis has the same definition today as it did in 1888, so by implying otherwise you fell into error.
So you have never heard of Kuhn and the paradigm shifts?
"A paradigm shift, as identified by American physicist Thomas Kuhn, is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. Kuhn contrasted these shifts, which characterize a scientific revolution, to the activity of normal science, which he described as scientific work done within a prevailing framework (or paradigm). In this context, the word "paradigm" is used in its original meaning, as "example" (Greek: παράδειγμα)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift (I don´t like Wikipedia but it will do for this)
And you mean that "democracy" was the same thing in ancient Greece as it is today in the UK?
And rigor mortis, having both physical and chemical dimensions, was examined and researched in the same way, with the same instruments, scales and technology, in 1888 as it is today in 2016?
Regards, Pierre
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostNo, David. It is one of two points in time given by Dr Bond, with the word "OR" in between. And since there is a witness hearing Kelly singing at about one o´clock, she must have been alive at about one o´clock. And that might be the very simple reason why the word "OR" occurs in the Bond-source.
Consequently, it's not true to say that Kelly "must" have been alive about one o'clock. As a result you were not entitled to unilaterally change Dr Bond's conclusions in your timeline.
And the word "OR" appears in Dr Bond's report because he wasn't sure. It's got nothing to do with Mary Ann Cox.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View Post
There are two sources (2) saying that Kelly was singing at "about one o´clock". Be very careful to note the word "about", David.
Hence she could have been singing at 12.45am and murdered at 1am couldn't she?
So remind me why you changed Dr Bond's conclusions again?
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostYou told me that Prater could have been mistaken about the time. So the same thing is true of Mary Ann Cox right?
Consequently, it's not true to say that Kelly "must" have been alive about one o'clock. As a result you were not entitled to unilaterally change Dr Bond's conclusions in your timeline.
And the word "OR" appears in Dr Bond's report because he wasn't sure. It's got nothing to do with Mary Ann Cox.
But the sources do not look like that. They have only one indication of it, and this is when Prater (and not Cox) states that she could have been mistaken about the light in Kelly´s room. This comment exists in the source.
Otherwise, things "could have", are not of any significance.
I do not change anything. I interpret a source. You don´t understand that. And yes, Kelly must have been alive then. If you are an historian.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostThen there is ONE source (inquest) giving the statement of Prater that she did not hear any singing "at" one o´clock. [U]Be very careful also to note the word "at", David.
So remind me why you changed Dr Bond's conclusions on the basis that dead people don't sing?
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostRight, so no singing "at" one o'clock which means Kelly could have been dead at one o'clock doesn't it?
So remind me why you changed Dr Bond's conclusions on the basis that dead people don't sing?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostFinally, there is another source (police investigation) where Prater does not even talk about singing as an issue at all.
She only spoke about singing at the inquest because she was asked about it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostWell she hadn't heard any singing so why would she "talk about singing as an issue"?
She only spoke about singing at the inquest because she was asked about it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostBut in this source, she claims to having been not in her room and not in the house where this room is situated, but outside of this house until 1.30. During the time when she was outside the house, she spoke to McCarthy.
You always prefer evidence given on oath don't you?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View Post
So you have never heard of Kuhn and the paradigm shifts?
"A paradigm shift, as identified by American physicist Thomas Kuhn, is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. Kuhn contrasted these shifts, which characterize a scientific revolution, to the activity of normal science, which he described as scientific work done within a prevailing framework (or paradigm). In this context, the word "paradigm" is used in its original meaning, as "example" (Greek: παράδειγμα)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift (I don´t like Wikipedia but it will do for this)
And you mean that "democracy" was the same thing in ancient Greece as it is today in the UK?
And rigor mortis, having both physical and chemical dimensions, was examined and researched in the same way, with the same instruments, scales and technology, in 1888 as it is today in 2016?
Regards, Pierre
But this is all somewhat irrelevant. Please explain how you think the 1888 definition of rigor mortis conflicts with the modern definition?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostAnd the next explanatory factor is the talking with McCarthy:
People who talk to people tend to listen less attentively to other sounds going on in the background than people who are not talking to someone and instead listen to hear sounds.
This is my interpretation of the sources. Show me a better one, and I will surely change my interpretation.
As a better explanation, how about there was no singing in Mary's room at 1 o'clock?
Comment
Comment