As it turns out, the Ripper Cabal is real...it's just not who you thought it was

[Admin]

At this time we are making the decision to close the thread. We believe that everything that could be said has been said, and there is nothing further that needs to be added. Thank you.

[lynn cates]

ought

Hello Mr. Begg. Thanks.

Well, we certainly ought to in order to be responsible members of the epistemic community.

Cheers.
LC

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

wasnt Gideon Fell --Stewart Evans in disguise?

Yes, he was.

Wolf.

[PaulB]

Hello Mr. Begg. Delighted so to do.

Reason, itself, is objective. It admits of certain deductive inferences (Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Disjunctive Syllogism, etc); ways of calculating inductive inferences, and so on. Moreover, this canon of rationality is open to all, and able to be applied uniformly. In a word, it is "objective."

Unfortunately, we, as human beings, ofttimes misapply reason. When forging a chain of, say, inductive reasoning, we allow weak links, redundant ones, and so on, to make up that chain. With this human element, the way that "reason" is applied is now tweaked to fit an individual in a specific set of circumstances. Hence, "subjective."

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
That's what I thought you meant, but isn't that why we test those links as best we can with the materials at our disposal?

[Abby Normal]

The new members may not get it, Ally, so for their benefit I looked up the first use of Cabal here on the Casebook Message Board.

It was way back in March of 2008, in a thread called The New Vogue featuring:

the Suspended Gideon Fell
the Banned Cap'n Jack
the Inactive Aspallek
along with Smiling Dan Norder
and a few survivors like Robert, Mike & Howie.

But yes the poster who first spoke of the Cabal was .............drumroll...................

... the Suspended Mr Poster. Here is the post that launched a thousand tickets to nowhere when in reply to Dan he said:


http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...=4806#post4806

wasnt Gideon Fell --Stewart Evans in disguise?

[lynn cates]

subjectivity

Hello Ally. Thanks.

"Subjective reason cannot be used as a blanket term to excuse fallacy."

Quite. Provided, of course, you mean the "subjective application of reason." For, if it results in a fallacy, one may claim that reason was MISapplied.

"Two people can look at the same items and come to different conclusions and both can be valid conclusions."

Perhaps "good" or "acceptable" conclusions? Technically, "validity" applies only to deductive arguments.

"But the key component is that in order for them both to be considered valid and merely the result of subjective difference, the two people must have both actually examined the facts in evidence."

Yes. And now we are discussing induction. And I agree.

"You cannot dismiss outright error as being merely subjective differences."

Nor would I try. I noted merely that Mr. Begg and Mac were having a difference of opinion vis-a-vis the status of "reason"--objective vs subjective. I offered a linguistic compromise.

"Who was it recently on the Mizen thread who said two people can look at the same thing and the same behavior can point to guilt or innocence if a person's mind is already made up."

I'll bite. Whom? But I would agree with that. Our minds are frequently "made up" concerning many things. And yes, we "filter" the external material world (if there IS one--perhaps I should say, "our perceptions") through what Kant referred to as the 12 categories. But ahead of them all, he noted that both time and space were posited by the mind. (Is time/space real? Descartes accepted them as so--based on faith. Can it be proven? Of course not.)

But, more to the point, do we filter lesser "circumstances" through our personalities, proclivities, etc? Indeed we do.

"THAT'S subjective."

No objection there. (Umm, no pun intended.)

"Failing to actually look at the evidence and then making up one's mind, or just hurling accusations without acquainting oneself with the facts is not just variances in thinking."

Again, agreed. But Mr. Begg had asked me to expand on my suggested compromise. I did. But in so doing I had Mr. Begg and Mac in mind. I was not thinking about Trevor. That is a further issue.

Cheers.
LC

[Ally]

Subjective reason cannot be used as a blanket term to excuse fallacy.

Two people can look at the same items and come to different conclusions and both can be valid conclusions. But the key component is that in order for them both to be considered valid and merely the result of subjective difference, the two people must have both actually examined the facts in evidence. You cannot dismiss outright error as being merely subjective differences. Who was it recently on the Mizen thread that said two people can look at the same thing and the same behavior can point to guilt or innocence if a person's minds already made up. THAT'S subjective. Failing to actually look at the evidence and then making up one's mind, or just hurling accusations without acquainting oneself with the facts is not just variances in thinking.

[lynn cates]

Reason, Inference and Subjectivity--towards putting a reader to sleep.

Hello Mr. Begg. Delighted so to do.

Reason, itself, is objective. It admits of certain deductive inferences (Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Disjunctive Syllogism, etc); ways of calculating inductive inferences, and so on. Moreover, this canon of rationality is open to all, and able to be applied uniformly. In a word, it is "objective."

Unfortunately, we, as human beings, ofttimes misapply reason. When forging a chain of, say, inductive reasoning, we allow weak links, redundant ones, and so on, to make up that chain. With this human element, the way that "reason" is applied is now tweaked to fit an individual in a specific set of circumstances. Hence, "subjective."

Cheers.
LC

[Ally]

Ol' Man River... Deep voice... Loved and respected singer... also an actor.

Oh I have heard of him then! I like that song. Still don't care a fig if someone wanted to kill him 70 years ago though. I imagine there's a conspiracy to kill half the actors around now (and if anyone's involved in one for the Kartrashians, jump me in).

Stephen Powell... yes, well...

Dont you dare think a mean thought against him! He was a saint! A martyred saint, he was.

[PaulB]

ROFlMAO. Okay after re-reading this four times to try and figure out what this rambling mess was talking about, I think I have almost figured it out. First I have to say it does my heart good to see Trevor lumped with the likes of Stephen Powell. That's just first, because boy is that comparison apt. Let's see, what did Powell do, came on the boards, accused a specific individual of forging the diary, and every time the facts didn't fit his story, the story changed. So yeah, I'll absolutely grant that's a genuine and apt comparison there. Second, why in the world would I scream because you have knowledge of a plot to kill Paul Robeson 70 years ago? Third, who the hell is Paul Robeson? Fourth, why do I care again? Oh that's right I don't.

Ol' Man River... Deep voice... Loved and respected singer... also an actor.

Stephen Powell... yes, well...

[PaulB]

Hello Mr. Begg, Mac. What if one were to claim that reason, whilst itself objective, admits of many subjective applications?

Cheers.
LC

Can you expand on that?

[Ally]

Now Trevor is not alone.Ma ny years ago a poster came up with a story about who wrote the diary.I accepted his beliefs as being honest.I w as the only one who did.W ho led the chorus of us being labbeled akin to morons and worse, Well it was dear angelic ally.Now I am perhaps the only person on this earth who is now in possession of information of a plan to kill the actor Paul Robeson w ay back in 1948.Let the bitch scream about that.Why should I justify anything to her.Why should Trevor.Let the person he has labelled a liar,respond.

ROFlMAO. Okay after re-reading this four times to try and figure out what this rambling mess was talking about, I think I have almost figured it out. First I have to say it does my heart good to see Trevor lumped with the likes of Stephen Powell. That's just first, because boy is that comparison apt. Let's see, what did Powell do, came on the boards, accused a specific individual of forging the diary, and every time the facts didn't fit his story, the story changed. So yeah, I'll absolutely grant that's a genuine and apt comparison there. Second, why in the world would I scream because you have knowledge of a plot to kill Paul Robeson 70 years ago? Third, who the hell is Paul Robeson? Fourth, why do I care again? Oh that's right I don't.

[PaulB]

Now Trevor is not alone.Ma ny years ago a poster came up with a story about who wrote the diary.I accepted his beliefs as being honest.I w as the only one who did.W ho led the chorus of us being labbeled akin to morons and worse, Well it was dear angelic ally.Now I am perhaps the only person on this earth who is now in possession of information of a plan to kill the actor Paul Robeson w ay back in 1948.Let the bitch scream about that.Why should I justify anything to her.Why should Trevor.Let the person he has labelled a liar,respond.

Harry,
I don't think this is about whether Trevor should answer her or not, it's about whether or not he should answer his critics per se. Whether he should answer the objections to his thinking and his theories.

[lynn cates]

theoretical and applied

Hello Mr. Begg, Mac. What if one were to claim that reason, whilst itself objective, admits of many subjective applications?

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

Assuming we see the world based upon our personal experiences, and we channel information through these personal experiences - then how can reason, in relation to this particular subject, be anything other than subjective. This isn't a science, where a proposition can be verified.

And, I think this is at the heart of my contention with all of this. Trevor's apron theory isn't as ridiculous as what some seem to think. It would seem Trevor has weighed up the pros and the cons and simply arrived at an alternative conclusion.

This 'deceptive with the facts' argument is simply nonsense. Firstly, it doesn't actually mean anything - it's garbled, abstract nonsense; secondly, if there is an ounce of meaning in there then I think it implies Trevor has used the 'facts' to suit his story - who would have thought it eh? Someone using the facts as they see fit to arrive at his/her conclusion.

Anyway, my last post on the subject. In sum: a shambles of a thread started for what purpose.

A reasoned argument may not be entirely free from personal bias, but that does not make it subjective. Some arguments are based on a careful and considered assessment of the evidence, which in turn is based on years of study and the acquisition of knowledge and experience about the time and place.

Sadly, this really isn't about whether or not Trevor's apron theory is ridiculous or not. As it happens it is ridiculous. There are so many good and solid objections to it that it doesn't even merit serious consideration - unless those objections are greeted with equally good and solid answers, which, the complaint is, they're not. Which, the complaint is, are greeted with silly one-liners, accusations about Rippersaurs protecting pet theories, cartels, thievery, and so on.

I don't think I have ever said 'deceptive with the truth'. I have said Trevor's theatre shows are littered with errors. I have said that he has time and again revealed his ignorance of the subject and his lack of knowledge about the theories he is challenging. And ignorance and error - which one might say when offered up under the self-clam to be an acknowledged authority is deceiving people - is a little bit different than how you are defining it.