vision2020
Re: FW: Serial Cat Killer
Okay, one more stab at this. "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" reasoning means
"after this, therefore because of it." That is, the simple fact that event B
occurs after event A, that we ASSUME that event A is a causative factor for
event B. I sing in the shower (event A), there are no rogue elephants in
Moscow (event B). Therefore, my singing in the shower is the cause of there
being no rogue elephants in Moscow. The premises are true (I sing, there are
no elephants), but the conclusion is false. What I have suggested in the prior
posts is that while it MAY be that young person is involved in these crimes,
the mere fact that they have occurred after school was out is not evidence of
it. It is a circumstance that is consistent with it being a young person and a
circumstance that would also be consistent with the cat killer being an adult.
Because the university is on summer break and the vast majority of college
students are not around, we cannot conclude that the perpetrator is NOT a
college student.
You say you have "unsubstantiated data" that MAY indicate a pattern you
recognize and that IF you are right, then a child MIGHT have committed the
crime. If I told you that it is a substantiated fact that people 25 to 55
years old with violent tendencies act out more during the summer months, what
does that tell us? Nothing more than we knew before we knew that fact--that
a crazy adult 25-55 MIGHT be the perpetrator. I suggest that singling out one
group as including the POSSIBLE perpetrator just doesn't make much sense.
Investigating them--yes. But the very problem of jumping to conclusions, or
even hypotheses, without sufficient cause-related data is that one begins to
evaluate new data in a manner so as to be consistent with the hypothesis or
conclusion. Perhaps more importantly, as a community or society we make or
"suspicions" (or maybe prejudices) known.
In short, if the perpetrator is caught and is under 18 no one can validly say,
"I knew s/he would be because school was out." We can only guess now.
Mike Curley
> From: sec@moscow.com
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:44:41 -0700
> Subject: Re: FW: Serial Cat Killer
> Priority: normal
> Date forwarded: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Mike Curley" <curley@CYPHER.TURBONET.COM>
> To: sec@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
> Date sent: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:43:50 +0000
> Subject: Re: FW: Serial Cat Killer
> Priority: normal
> Forwarded by: vision2020@moscow.com
>
> > Stan
> > I hate to have you say it. Yes, maybe it is a young person. But maybe it
> > isn't. The point is not that we dismiss them as suspects, but that we not
> > target them without any sort of confirming information. If it were during
> > school would we say it is likely a university student? But if it only
> > happened on Saturdays would that make it more likely a younger person
> > because they don't have school on Saturdays? Unless there is some
> > information about which I am unaware that more clearly suggests a young
> > person, I am going to continue to suggest that the post hoc, ergo propter
> > hoc "reasoning" on this issue is just as silly as my saying that since I
> > started singing in the shower I have been able to keep rogue elephants out
> > of the city limits of Moscow.
> >
> > Mike Curley
>
> well, I sure don't follow your logic, but if your the one keeping rogue
> elephants out of Moscow, please continue singing in the shower
> (grin), I agree that we can NOT exclude ANY group. but maybe I just
> have some more background with things like this, but based on
> unsubstanciated data (I do NOT expect the police to provide me with
> all facts and figures) there does appear to be a most disturbing
> pattern, and I think I recognize this pattern. and if I am correct, that
> pattern only applies to youth in most cases. (i'm trying to walk a fine
> line here.. I don't want to cause a "panic" or raise baseless fears.)
>
> Stan
>
>
Back to TOC