(2017-09-13, 12:54 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get the differentiation between "recall", vs "a true record of what as said or what happened". Isn't ANY human testimony at it's core, a product of one's memory? e.g if I sit and write something down, it is from my memory.
So if 100 people saw a UFO fly overhead, and described it in separate testimony, in the same way, that would have "little evidentiary value"?
Maybe some examples would help.
An audio/video recording of the events which took place within an operating theatre would be a truer record than interviewing a participant after the fact as to what was said or done.
An audio recording during an interview would be a truer record of what an NDEer reported than the recollection of the interviewer.
A video recording of the UFO would be a truer record than the recollections of what people thought they were seeing (which necessarily includes the intense visual processing which takes place in the human brain).
Asking a subject how much pain they are in is a truer record than asking them to recall how much pain they had before they took the pill.
It helps if you focus on why this is a concern. Our memories are not like an audio/video recording of an event, but rather are reconstructions which are re-written and modified as new information becomes available or as information is lost. And they are modified in some very predictable ways. For example, in the setting of feedback, we misattribute the source of information as though it came from us, we recall that we were certain when the feedback tells us we were correct and doubtful when feedback tells us we were wrong. Our memories are over-written when we are presented with visual feedback (e.g. eye-witnesses presented with a suspect line-up can subsequently substitute the unrelated suspect's face into their recollection of the crime). Etc.
So the less dependence we have on human recollection, the better. But when human recollection is necessary (which it often is for a variety of investigations (medicine, for one)), recall documented as close as possible to the event, in the absence of feedback or opportunities to be over-written, can be reliable.
Linda
(2017-09-14, 10:53 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe some examples would help.
An audio/video recording of the events which took place within an operating theatre would be a truer record than interviewing a participant after the fact as to what was said or done.
An audio recording during an interview would be a truer record of what an NDEer reported than the recollection of the interviewer.
A video recording of the UFO would be a truer record than the recollections of what people thought they were seeing (which necessarily includes the intense visual processing which takes place in the human brain).
Asking a subject how much pain they are in is a truer record than asking them to recall how much pain they had before they took the pill.
It helps if you focus on why this is a concern. Our memories are not like an audio/video recording of an event, but rather are reconstructions which are re-written and modified as new information becomes available or as information is lost. And they are modified in some very predictable ways. For example, in the setting of feedback, we misattribute the source of information as though it came from us, we recall that we were certain when the feedback tells us we were correct and doubtful when feedback tells us we were wrong. Our memories are over-written when we are presented with visual feedback (e.g. eye-witnesses presented with a suspect line-up can subsequently substitute the unrelated suspect's face into their recollection of the crime). Etc.
So the less dependence we have on human recollection, the better. But when human recollection is necessary (which it often is for a variety of investigations (medicine, for one)), recall documented as close as possible to the event, in the absence of feedback or opportunities to be over-written, can be reliable.
Linda
Ummmm. No.
Recordings are nice, even desirable, but aren't necessary at all for validity.
People have been convicted and put to DEATH on witness testimony for over 200 years.
It's not perfect, but neither are recordings.
I think it is a matter of degree.
Quote:would be a truer record
(2017-09-14, 12:10 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]I think it is a matter of degree.
Yes it is, which is why I said they would be desirable.
But Linda was not talking about "degree" when she said in OP that these verbal and visual reports are not valid evidence. That is what I am arguing. That fact that perhaps she is walking it back is nice though.
(2017-09-14, 11:57 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Ummmm. No.
Recording are nice, even desirable, but aren't necessary at all for validity.
People have been convicted and put to DEATH on witness testimony for over 200 years.
It's not perfect, but neither are recordings.
I would be cautious about using a legal standard as a scientific standard. Legal standards are much lower than scientific ones. Legal decisions are filled with statements about the difficulties of relying on eyewitness testimony and how unreliable they can be.
(2017-09-14, 12:32 PM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]I would be cautious about using a legal standard as a scientific standard. Legal standards are much lower than scientific ones. Legal decisions are filled with statements about the difficulties of relying on eyewitness testimony and how unreliable they can be.
Screw legal vs scientific:
I'm saying people have been put to death with non recorded testimony. I'm just saying it is THAT compelling.
Dismissing it with a wave of the hand is ridiculous.
There are times and things that are not possible to record. That doesn't make this evidence meaningless.
(2017-09-14, 11:57 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Ummmm. No.
Recording are nice, even desirable, but aren't necessary at all for validity.
People have been convicted and put to DEATH on witness testimony for over 200 years.
Yes, unfortunately.
https://www.innocenceproject.org/
You're not obliged to change your opinion. In the spirit of my original post, I'm just pointing out that the research does not support your opinion as to validity, and that's what scientists look to with respect to whether something can serve as evidence.
Linda
(2017-09-14, 01:12 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, unfortunately.
https://www.innocenceproject.org/
You're not obliged to change your opinion. In the spirit of my original post, I'm just pointing out that the research does not support your opinion as to validity, and that's what scientists look to with respect to whether something can serve as evidence.
Linda
Yeah. And the "research" is written by scientists.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!, that they would contend such a thing.
Of course I'm not going to change my opinion unless compelling evidence is brought forward. The fact that "science says so", is not compelling and hasn't been for me for quite some time, since I have come across so many occasions where science has buried, hidden or obscured the truth.
I still ask that you would be so kind as to respond to my original question if you would:
If 100 people witnessed a UFO flying overhead, and an hour later they were each individually interviewed and described the event in the same way, how would you treat that evidence? Would it be worth considering? Would it be valid?
(2017-09-14, 01:18 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah. And the "research" is written by scientists.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!, that they would contend such a thing.
Of course I'm not going to change my opinion unless compelling evidence is brought forward. The fact that "science says so", is not compelling and hasn't been for me for quite some time, since I have come across so many occasions where science has buried, hidden or obscured the truth.
I still ask that you would be so kind as to respond to my original question if you would:
If 100 people witnessed a UFO flying overhead, and an hour later they were each individually interviewed and described the event in the same way, how would you treat that evidence? Would it be worth considering? Would it be valid?
Then we are simply talking about two different things - things scientists look at with respect to validity and things jkmac regards as valid. I don't see any point in attempting to reconcile the two.
I would treat it as evidence that 100 people saw something they were unable to identify. I'm not sure where you were thinking of going with that.
Linda
(2017-09-14, 02:35 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Then we are simply talking about two different things - things scientists look at with respect to validity and things jkmac regards as valid. I don't see any point in attempting to reconcile the two.
I would treat it as evidence that 100 people saw something they were unable to identify. I'm not sure where you were thinking of going with that.
Linda
I think you are being WAY to casual (glib really) about what is, and is not appropriate, as "scientific" evidence.
If for example those 100 witnesses were individually interviewed and described an object 200-300 feet across, black in color, moving NW to SE, and with red and green lights,,, a responsible and objective researcher would certainly consider this as evidence to be considered and weighted appropriately. Not to do so would be negligent and unprofessional.
I would not expect the "scientist" to simply note that "100 people saw something they were unable to identity". I find it silly to even conceive that this would be appropriate behavior as an investigator. Having spent 40 years in science and engineering I would go so far as to say that I would fire someone on the spot for such shoddy work.
But anyway- that's just how I see it.