Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-09-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
I've always been kinda fascinated by the story. I'm not sure if I want to know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
07-09-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(07-09-2014 12:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(07-09-2014 12:18 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  It's all over the news but is it legit? A Shawl believed to be found at the crime scene of Catherine Eddowes, a Ripper victim was bought at an auction by a businessman and author named Russel Edwards. Mr. Edwards hired Dr. Jari Louhelainen, an Associate Professor of Biochemistry at University of Helsinki who holds a PhD in Molecular Epidemiology and a Masters of Science in Biochemistry to study DNA found on the shawl. Using DNA from descendants of the victim and the suspected killer, DNA matches show that DNA of a top suspect, Aaron Kosminkski was on the shawl. This sounds interesting but before I accept it, I'd like to see peer-reviewed evidence and more testing. It also just so happen that Mr. Edwards is writing a book on it. Not sure if this is just for fame or this could turn out to be a historic discovery.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world...7050842205

I am going to wait for some confirmation beyond the daily mail. Besides this seems very, I dunno, woo-ish. How can that sample not be contaminated after all this time and the whole we gathered up descendants and tested them against the sample seems not very scientific.

This...

And also the cloak was found near a crime scene. That doesn't prove he was the killer, only that his cloak was nearby -- it doesn't even prove he was nearby -- since it could have been pinched.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
07-09-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(07-09-2014 01:15 PM)pablo Wrote:  I've always been kinda fascinated by the story. I'm not sure if I want to know.

I think a lot of people feel that way because it will take away the whole mystery aspect of it which keeps it interesting.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
07-09-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(07-09-2014 01:20 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(07-09-2014 12:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I am going to wait for some confirmation beyond the daily mail. Besides this seems very, I dunno, woo-ish. How can that sample not be contaminated after all this time and the whole we gathered up descendants and tested them against the sample seems not very scientific.

This...

And also the cloak was found near a crime scene. That doesn't prove he was the killer, only that his cloak was nearby -- it doesn't even prove he was nearby -- since it could have been pinched.

Yeah, I think it raises more questions than it answers.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JDog554's post
08-09-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
08-09-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
Yeah look bro, screw peer review. It's not a magic wand. Understanding the underlying processes is far more important than claiming peer review. Peer review is the equivalent of "god did it" for the non-believer. Once something is said to be peer reviewed people stop thinking and scrutinising.

It is not necessary for something to be peer reviewed for it to be true. What is far more reliable is holding claims up to a certain standard of logic and reasoning. This entails that the underlying assumptions and facts be understood.

Peer review is not the meat of the matter.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(08-09-2014 01:20 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  Yeah look bro, screw peer review. It's not a magic wand. Understanding the underlying processes is far more important than claiming peer review. Peer review is the equivalent of "god did it" for the non-believer. Once something is said to be peer reviewed people stop thinking and scrutinising.

It is not necessary for something to be peer reviewed for it to be true. What is far more reliable is holding claims up to a certain standard of logic and reasoning. This entails that the underlying assumptions and facts be understood.

Peer review is not the meat of the matter.

Peer review helps eliminate bias and shows faulty methods. It is by far the best way to confirm true positive results and sort them from false positives. Peer review the the backbone of science, it is what separates real science from snake oil salesmen like Deepak Chopra.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
08-09-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(08-09-2014 01:20 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  Yeah look bro, screw peer review. It's not a magic wand. Understanding the underlying processes is far more important than claiming peer review. Peer review is the equivalent of "god did it" for the non-believer. Once something is said to be peer reviewed people stop thinking and scrutinising.

It is not necessary for something to be peer reviewed for it to be true. What is far more reliable is holding claims up to a certain standard of logic and reasoning. This entails that the underlying assumptions and facts be understood.

Peer review is not the meat of the matter.

but you would rather trust the word of one man or confirmation from more than one party? I could say I have evidence of Bigfoot, you could either take my word or get others to examine the evidence and confirm it as well. I'm not saying just peer review would make it 100% but it would help make it more legit.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like JDog554's post
09-09-2014, 01:21 AM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2014 01:31 AM by BlackMason.)
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(08-09-2014 01:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Peer review the the backbone of science, it is what separates real science from snake oil salesmen like Deepak Chopra.

I disagree. The backbone of science is not peer review. By "backbone" I assume you mean most important. The backbone of science is logic and reason by way of observation. Without logic, reason and observation, one cannot have science. These elements are necessary. Peer review is the cherry on top. It is not necessary. It is pretty much optional. Repeatability is not peer review but peer review uses repeatability.

Peer review is a regulator; It is the referee. Your claim that it is the backbone is tantemount to saying a sport cannot be played without a referee. That is absolutely bogus! The ref is the cherry on top but hardly the most important element.

(08-09-2014 01:26 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  but you would rather trust the word of one man or confirmation from more than one party? I could say I have evidence of Bigfoot, you could either take my word or get others to examine the evidence and confirm it as well. I'm not saying just peer review would make it 100% but it would help make it more legit.

I would choose the word of one man so long as his formulation is logically sound and has reasonable conclusions. There is a logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. What is important is HOW the group of many people are coming to their conclusions. Is their methodology logically sound? Are their conclusions feasible?

If not then we are just like theists who get satisfied with "god did it".

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2014, 09:53 AM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
I thought examination by logic and reason is what peer review does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: