Magical Realists Magical Reality

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Magical Realist, Mar 30, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
    Evidence as in hundreds of video, audio, photo, footprint and eyewitness accounts. Yeah..that's pretty extraordinary evidence..
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    The very possibility that photos and videos can be faked means that any such evidence is unreliable.

    A mountain of unreliable evidence is just a mountain of unreliable evidence.

    To be taken seriously, the only evidence that is extraordinary enough to be taken seriously is actual, physical evidence. Like an actual bigfoot creature.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
    We send criminals to prison based on this evidence all the time. So it certainly IS good enough evidence...Ahhh...but then what did I say earlier?

    "All you do is complain and gripe that the video, audio, photos, footprints, or eyewitness accounts are not evidence, when in fact it precisely IS evidence. Then you make up shit about it being a conspiratorial hoax propagated by con artists to just be famous, based on no evidence whatsoever."

    Like I said...stuck record...
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    I don't know what's worse... whether you refuse to understand, or whether you're incapable of understanding.
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
    And now with the insults and flames. Same old pattern over and over again.
     
  9. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    So tell us, why do YOU think the scientific community is refusing to acknowledge that all these photos and eyewitness testimony is evidence for the existence of a creature for which there has never been any physical, biological evidence for?
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
    I have no idea. Why don't you ask them?
     
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    No, it isn't... as has been proven with how many times an "eye witness" has WRONGLY sent someone to prison...


    http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/eyewitness.aspx
    http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
    and

    http://apps.americanbar.org/litigat...012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html
    It doesn't get much simpler, MR - Eye Witness testimony is only as accurate as human memory... and human memory is inherently flawed.

    Now, unless you can adequately explain why you are somehow more qualified to judge the accuracy of an eye-witness over the American Psychological Association, the US B.A.R., etc...

    Oh, and you may want to quit ignoring arguments/evidence you don't like... and take a look at the updated subforum rules.
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
    I ignore you and your so-called "arguments" because they make no sense. As in this case, where since eyewitness testimony can SOMETIMES be flawed then you say eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Yet every criminal investigator and court trial says otherwise. We don't say that because SOME doctors are quacks then doctors are unreliable. We don't say because SOME people fall off ladders then ladders are unsafe. etc and etc...Back to ignoring you again. I have the total right to do that you know.
     
  13. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    A truly amazing ability to ignore anything presented which is contrary to what he want to believe.
     
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
    Flame much troll?
     
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Yet every criminal investigator and court trial says otherwise.

    Any competent investigator is aware of the shortcomings of eyewitness testimony.
     
  16. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Their answer has been given to you time and time again.
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
    I've never heard "their answer." Only your answer. Do you speak for the science community now?
     
  18. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yeah, sure. Whatever.

    AlexG, Bells, Cosmictraveler, James R, Kittamaru, Russ_Watters, Spidergoat and myself all speak on behalf of the science community.
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
    LOL! You do? That's news to me. Are you all scientists now?
     
  20. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    More so than you, since we actually respect real data and modify our views based on what said data says... where as you throw out any data that doesn't correspond to your desired outcome (also known as confirmation bias)

    So the fact that large swaths of the American Legal System and large numbers of PROFESSIONAL TRAINED PSYCHOLOGISTS all agree that Eye Witness Testimony is flawed somehow means that it is still reliable?

    What fucking FANTASY WORLD do you live in? And no, comparing unreliable testimony to someone falling off a ladder is a total red herring, and you know it.

    Ignore ANY users argument (especially one that is so directly pertinent to the topic at hand) at your own risk...
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,105
    Eyewitness testimony has been proven time and again to be unreliable. And this is a huge problem for the criminal justice system, and for the civil justice system as a whole.

    There have been several studies, which study how people form false memories after seeing or looking at something.

    My own research into memory distortion goes back to the early 1970s, when I began studies of the "misinformation effect." These studies show that when people who witness an event are later exposed to new and misleading information about it, their recollections often become distorted. In one example, participants viewed a simulated automobile accident at an intersection with a stop sign. After the viewing, half the participants received a suggestion that the traffic sign was a yield sign. When asked later what traffic sign they remembered seeing at the intersection, those who had been given the suggestion tended to claim that they had seen a yield sign. Those who had not received the phony information were much more accurate in their recollection of the traffic sign.

    My students and I have now conducted more than 200 experiments involving over 20,000 individuals that document how exposure to misinformation induces memory distortion. In these studies, people "recalled" a conspicuous barn in a bucolic scene that contained no buildings at all, broken glass and tape recorders that were not in the scenes they viewed, a white instead of a blue vehicle in a crime scene, and Minnie Mouse when they actually saw Mickey Mouse. Taken together, these studies show that misinformation can change an individual's recollection in predictable and sometimes very powerful ways.

    Misinformation has the potential for invading our memories when we talk to other people, when we are suggestively interrogated or when we read or view media coverage about some event that we may have experienced ourselves. After more than two decades of exploring the power of misinformation, researchers have learned a great deal about the conditions that make people susceptible to memory modification. Memories are more easily modified, for instance, when the passage of time allows the original memory to fade.

    It isn't "some doctors", this is something that has been known and studied for a while.

    Finally, you ignore the moderator of this sub-forum at your peril. In this case, it has just made you look very foolish. What he is saying is correct. Eyewitness testimony is renown for being unreliable and people easily and unknowingly able to create false memories without even realising it and with very little input from others. The mere suggestion or hint or seeing or hearing something about an event can create a false memory.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Loftus, Elizabeth F. "Creating False Memories." Creating False Memories. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2015. <http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm>.

    Stambor, Zak. "How Reliable Is Eyewitness Testimony?"Http://www.apa.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2015. <http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx>.
     
  22. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    That reminds me of a study where people "remembered" meeting Bugs Bunny at Disneyworld.
     
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    *nod* there are many like it -

    http://science.time.com/2013/11/19/...nt-study-shows-false-memories-afflict-us-all/

    Even people with HSAM memory (often known as Eidetic, and erroneously referred to as Photographic memory) were just as susceptible to "false" memories by association or wordplay as those with standard memory...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page