User:JusticeThruChemistry/sandbox

In Philosophy Rene Descartes defines some very useful tools for profiling crime and criminals. Rene Descartes was the authors inspiration to apply his general method of knowledge, to criminal profiling and is my ongoing contribution to justice. The author encourages other educated individuals to contribute if and only if it is directly related to my conjectures.

The work of Renes Descartes is applied to the authors ideas and should be considered the only other source of knowledge to cite other than my own. 1. Conception of Knowledge 1.1 Analysis of Knowledge and Application to Criminal Investigations Famously, Descartes defines knowledge in terms of doubt. While distinguishing rigorous knowledge along with lesser grades of conviction Descartes wrote: A.	There is conviction when there remains some reason which might lead us to doubt, but knowledge is conviction based on a reason so strong that it can never be shaken by any stronger reason. (1640 letter, AT 3:64–65) I want to use these general concepts he provides above and below as a foundation to Crime and profiling techniques. Elsewhere, while answering a challenge as to whether he succeeds in founding such knowledge, Descartes writes: But since I see that you are still stuck fast in the doubts which I put forward in the First Meditation, and which I thought I had very carefully removed in the succeeding Meditations, I shall now expound for a second time the basis on which it seems to me that all human certainty can be founded. A.	First and Second Meditations on Philosophy are Descartes Methods of doubting all he knows of the universe to develop what is true. For example, as soon as we think that we correctly perceive something, we are spontaneously convinced that it is true. Now if this conviction is so firm that it is impossible for us ever to have any reason for doubting what we are convinced of, then there are no further questions for us to ask: we have everything that we could reasonably want. … For the supposition which we are making here is of a conviction so firm that it is quite incapable of being destroyed; and such a conviction is clearly the same as the most perfect certainty. (Replies 2, AT 7:144–45) B.	Here the author recognizes the use of doubt and certainty in court and in prior investigations of crime, as I intend to establish throughout. These passages (and others) clarify that Descartes understands doubt as the contrast of certainty. As his certainty increases, his doubt decreases; conversely, as doubt increases, certainty decreases. The requirement that knowledge is to be based in complete, or perfect certainty, amounts to requiring a complete absence of doubt — an inability to undermine one's conviction. Descartes' methodic emphasis on doubt, rather than on certainty, marks an epistemological innovation. This so-called ‘method of doubt’ will be discussed in context of crime and investigations. The certainty/inability of interest to Descartes is psychological in character, though not merely psychological — not simply an inexplicable feeling. It has also a distinctively epistemic character, involving a kind of rational insight. During moments of certainty, it is as if my perception is guided by “a great light in the intellect” (Med. 4, AT 7:59). This rational illumination empowers me to “see utterly clearly with my mind's eye”; my feelings of certainty are grounded — indeed, “I see a manifest contradiction” in denying the proposition of which I'm convinced. (Med. 3, AT 7:36) A.	Application of these to early stages of investigation can be seen best by the analysis of Gary Ridgeway, Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader with respect to certain information to test my conviction. The authors’ conviction is they knew each other and assisted each other in performing the murders and evading law enforcement. This Descartes would doubt as I do and we will examine certainty to remove doubt therefore the truth will follow. CMM