Why eyewitness testimony isn't reliable ....

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, you never let facts get in the way of your faith do you?

Facts is facts, and faith is faith. While there is *some* overlap, right down where the "rubber meets the road", so to speak, they do not have much to do with each other. The "fact" is that you have no facts that can possibly "get in the way" of my faith. Because if that were the case, I would have necessarily abandoned my faith long ago, but it's simply not that easy.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Pics or it didn't happen", eh?

Come on, even you know better than that.

Yes, I can be sure it happened. And I do not *need* to prove it. However, if you *need* proof to believe it, then that's on you. The consequences are still yours.

Are you really so unwilling to evolve just a little bit of your "fact-finding" over to faith and the knowledge ...[text shortened]... can't even do that. What makes you think that you can conjure up proof that God does not exist?

No, no you cannot be sure.

That was the whole point.

Unless you have external evidence to fall back on you cannot KNOW that
any memories you have are actually true.

Now most of the time this isn't particularly important.

But there are times when it does matter, and claims of the supernatural,
extraordinary claims, are one of those times.

We all [if we're honest] have instances where we cannot remember if we did
something [did I take my medicine today? I'm sure I packed my 'X' I remember
packing it... ect] or remember doing things we haven't. Which is why we have
so many reminder devices and techniques to make sure.
Medicine comes in trays with days of the week on, we have calendars, smartphones,
post-it's reminder calls, people take notes in meetings and produce minutes ect ect.

We have countless studies proving human memory is highly suspect.
Memories get merged, split, lost, distorted, and just plain made up.

Given that we know that memory is suspect, we CANNOT assume that any given memory
is true, unless we have other evidence to back it up. The more important or unlikely the
memory, and the more it conforms to our own biases and makes ourselves feel special
the more scrutiny that memory needs and the better the evidence we need to back it up.


Finally... You have the burden on proof backwards.

Claims are not assumed true until disproven.

Positive claims require positive evidence, the onus is thus on you to prove that your 'experiences'
are real.

Come on, even you know better than that.

You keep saying this, when it is clearly not true.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, that ( "Pics or it didn't happen." ) is exactly what he said.

He said that without proof, even I can't be sure it happened.

That is categorically false.

It is exactly what I was saying [all be it rather crudely put].

And it's absolutely true.

It is a known fact that memories [even dearly held vitally important ones]
can be false.

Therefore you cannot be certain that any given memory is true without
sufficient evidence for it.


EDIT: On reflection, no it's not exactly what I was saying, it's too crudely simplified to
the point of distortion. See the post below.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, that is not what he said. He just doesn't think human memory is reliable.
In certain cases, when there are independent witnesses, that can significantly increase the reliability of a claim.

The thing is, you yourself almost certainly agree with googlefudge. If I presented to you cases of people who were abducted by aliens, you would not accept their testimony as fact.

It is kinda what I'm saying, just lacking in any kind of nuance.

The fact that you have no evidence of course doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It just means that you cannot be sure or know that it happened.

Which is a major issue if you are claiming something extraordinary and supernatural.

I don't care how many 'independent witnesses' you have, if the claim is unlikely enough
it still wouldn't be enough.

For more ordinary claims it might be, although the article shows how radically differently
people experience and remember the same event afterwards.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And I can only hope that you are getting where I'm going with this.

You have your belief and I have my belief. I can respect that you believe what you say you believe, even if I do not believe it myself.

How is that so hard to understand? Is having a shred of empathy so wrong? I'm talking about being human. And basic human dignity is all I am aski ...[text shortened]... rs, unless we want to fight with them. And understand that this may have unanticipated results.

"Unless we want to fight with them". Some people regard religion as destructive .

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, no you cannot be sure.

That was the whole point.

Unless you have external evidence to fall back on you cannot KNOW that
any memories you have are actually true.

Now most of the time this isn't particularly important.

But there are times when it does matter, and claims of the supernatural,
extraordinary claims, are one of those times. ...[text shortened]... n, even you know better than that.[/quote]

You keep saying this, when it is clearly not true.

No, no you cannot be sure.

That was the whole point.

Unless you have external evidence to fall back on you cannot KNOW that
any memories you have are actually true.

No, I can be sure. Your point is wrong. I'm not a mental patient. I can remember exactly what I was doing and how I was feeling at every single major event in my life. For you to say that I cannot be sure my memories are correct, is just wrong. I can be sure. I do not have 'lapses' of memory. If you do, which strikes me as the only way you can confidently say these things, well, I am not you. I do not. And for you to compare significant, life-altering events in my life with trivial details, like "did I take my medicine today?" merely outlines how trivial you think these events in my life are. But I'm sorry, if these are your 'facts', you must recognize that *your* 'facts' are NOT *my* 'facts'. You are not me. You don't even know me. How you can sit as judge and jury to me is way, way beyond me. And far, FAR more than I would presume to do to you.

Originally posted by OdBod
"Unless we want to fight with them". Some people regard religion as destructive .

Religion, in itself, is not destructive. It's what people do with it, and what people blame on it, that can be destructive. And obviously, one needn't be religious to be disrespectful. And *that* is far more likely to actually cause the fight.

Originally posted by Suzianne

No, no you cannot be sure.

That was the whole point.

Unless you have external evidence to fall back on you cannot KNOW that
any memories you have are actually true.

No, I can be sure. Your point is wrong. I'm not a mental patient. I can remember exactly what I was doing and how I was feeling at every single major event in my ...[text shortened]... udge and jury to me is way, way beyond me. And far, FAR more than I would presume to do to you.

This is long established scientific consensus.

I am not making this up, I am reporting what the medical establishment regards
as rock solid multiply proven fact.

Which brings us back to the fact that you do not accept science in general
because you reject their methods.

You accept science ONLY when it doesn't conflict with your own religious beliefs.

JUST like RJHinds and the other creationists.

You just draw the line in a different place.


http://www.technologyreview.com/view/520156/memory-is-inherently-fallible-and-thats-a-good-thing/

http://www.brainpickings.org/2013/02/04/oliver-sacks-on-memory-and-plagiarism/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/28/the-fallibility-of-human-memory/

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=fallibility+of+human+memory&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=uNLcVK-PJIqAUZ-1g4gG&ved=0CCAQgQMwAA


EDIT: You evidently take some pride in viewing yourself as someone who accepts science.
And that's admirable, and it's why [among other reasons] you're a lot more interesting to
talk to than someone like RJHinds who blatantly doesn't care.

So the question is this.

Do you value your self and external image as someone who accepts and values science [enough] to
put your religious beliefs to one side for a moment and evaluate the science here?

Are you like RJHinds, or are you prepared to update and correct your beliefs when you encounter
new evidence?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Christian is Christian. There are certain core beliefs. I only included the ones that no one can argue with. What you're bucking against here is the definition of the word 'Christian'.

Well then you cannot claim the existence of 2.2 billion Christians. Sorry.

You must have missed my edit in an earlier post (my fault, I added it later) with some interesting stats off Wikipedia:

A majority (53% ) of Canadians believe in God. What is of particular interest is that 28% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, and 23% of those who attend weekly religious services do not.
One quarter (23% ) of those with no religious identity still believe in a God.[16]

Originally posted by Suzianne
Religion, in itself, is not destructive. It's what people do with it, and what people blame on it, that can be destructive. And obviously, one needn't be religious to be disrespectful. And *that* is far more likely to actually cause the fight.

Religion is, in itself, destructive. It requires the concept of absolute belief which creates a mind set that can be manipulated by religious leaders. Science on the other hand accepts that present understanding is NOT absolute and will certainly change as we learn more.

Originally posted by Suzianne
However, if I were abducted by aliens myself, this would lend credence, for me, to their claims.

I agree. But would you necessarily believe it, or would you doubt your experience?

Even if I were not abducted by aliens, how many of these types of testimony do I need to hear before I wonder "what is happening here that so many people believe this?"
I don't know. You tell me. How many?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Facts is facts, and faith is faith. While there is *some* overlap, right down where the "rubber meets the road", so to speak, they do not have much to do with each other.

They should, but you don't allow them to. Essentially, you ignore any facts that contradict your faith.

The "fact" is that you have no facts that can possibly "get in the way" of my faith. Because if that were the case, I would have necessarily abandoned my faith long ago, but it's simply not that easy.
Glad to see you agree with me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Your point is wrong. I'm not a mental patient. I can remember exactly what I was doing and how I was feeling at every single major event in my life. For you to say that I cannot be sure my memories are correct, is just wrong. I can be sure. I do not have 'lapses' of memory.

If that is true, then you are highly unusual and possibly should be a mental patient (by that I do not mean you should be confined, but rather you should get a checkup).

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is long established scientific consensus.

I am not making this up, I am reporting what the medical establishment regards
as rock solid multiply proven fact.

Which brings us back to the fact that you do not accept science in general
because you reject their methods.

You accept science ONLY when it doesn't conflict with your own religious ...[text shortened]... Hinds, or are you prepared to update and correct your beliefs when you encounter
new evidence?

You evidently take some pride in viewing yourself as someone who accepts science....Are you like RJHinds, are you prepared to update and correct your beliefs when you encounter new evidence?

Yeah, Suzianne prides herself on having a creationist view that is nevertheless consistent with some particular prevailing scientific thought...according to her, that is. She goes so far as to stick her nose up to others like RJHinds on this point, chiding him that his view is blind, for example, to the reality of evolution and an old earth. So how is her view consistent with the science on this point, one may ask? Well, her view is "consistent with" the prevailing science in that she makes ad hoc stipulations that artificially shelter it from being conceivably disconfirmed on account of said science. Here's a rather stupefying example, in her own words, from Thread 159473:

"There can be no proof of God because proof would undermine a key concept in religion, that of free will. So yes, God takes pains to prevent proof of His existence from being recorded. Man must come to God through faith alone. Proof destroys this. Consider that God has only shown Himself (or spoken to) those who already had faith in Him. This is also the reason there can be no "young earth creation" for, if proved, this would absolutely prove a divine hand was responsible. Creation necessarily had to have taken billions of years in order to appear as unguided, natural progression." --Suzianne

So, sure, I take it that she's prepared to update and correct her beliefs (read: articles of faith) on such topics in the event that new relevant scientific evidence comes along. Er, I mean, at least perhaps she'll have to update her ad hoc stipulations in such event, that is. For example, if, hypothetically, new evidence conclusively showed that the earth is only, say, millions (not billions) of year old; then her ad hoc stipulation that "Creation necessarily had to have taken billions of years in order to appear as unguided, natural progression" would presumably have to change accordingly.

What a ridiculous charade! Ironically, I would have more respect for her position if she just owned the obvious fact that it is based on blind faith, pure and simple. But no. She feels the need to pretend like it is consistent with and tracks scientific thought, to the point of ragging on young earthers who fail in such regard. With admissions like these in the quote above, though, she's not going to be fooling too many on that count. I've tried to explain this to her before, without much success: a view does not count as consistent with the scientific evidence in virtue of having ad hoc stipulations that shield the view from having disconfirmation conditions.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]You evidently take some pride in viewing yourself as someone who accepts science....Are you like RJHinds, are you prepared to update and correct your beliefs when you encounter new evidence?

Yeah, Suzianne prides herself on having a creationist view that is nevertheless consistent with some particular prevailing scientific thought...according to ...[text shortened]... irtue of having ad hoc stipulations that shield the view from having disconfirmation conditions.[/b]

I agree completely.

However I am not sure that she realises that this is what she is doing because
making up ad hoc and post hoc explanations for why we believe stuff is how the
brain operates by default.

I find it entirely plausible that she really truly believes that her position is consistent
with science and that she has a part of her self image that is tied up in that.


So hence my question.

When faced with a clear scientific consensus that contradicts a belief tied up with
another part of her self image, which wins?

What does she value more, her belief that her memory is miraculously faultless, or
her belief that she accepts and is pro science?