Magical Realists Magical Reality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Daecon said:
Well we have no doubt that Humans exist, which is why CCTV footage, photos and footprints of Humans is rather mundane.

Bigfoot hasn't been proven to exist, so evidence for such an extraordinary claim is going to have to be much more extraordinary than a single video and claims of "because I said so".
Click to expand...

Evidence as in hundreds of video, audio, photo, footprint and eyewitness accounts. Yeah..that's pretty extraordinary evidence..
 
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.
 
Daecon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
I don't know what's worse... whether you refuse to understand, or whether you're incapable of understanding.
 
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?
 
Daecon said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. Why don't you ask them?
 
Magical Realist said:
We send criminals to prison based on this evidence all the time. So it certainly IS good enough evidence...
Click to expand...
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
The limits of eyewitness testimony
With a wealth of research suggesting that eyewitness identifications can be unreliable, courts and juries should be cautious when they evaluate eyewitness testimony, says APA in its latest amicus briefs.

...
APA's brief explains that juries don't understand the many factors that can influence a witness's ability to accurately identify a suspect, including how much stress a witness is under, whether a weapon is present, the amount of time a witness had to look at the person, the lighting present at the time, how long it's been since someone first witnessed the crime or suggestions of guilt by police.

The power of suggestion is central in Perry v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court case for which APA filed a brief on Aug. 5. Perry addresses whether courts, in affording a defendant due process, must review the validity of all eyewitness testimony that was obtained with improperly suggestive tactics. New Hampshire requires such a review only if police or other state officials use improper tactics to obtain eyewitness identification, but not if suggestive tactics occur through happenstance. In Perry, a witness, unsolicited by police, identified the defendant after seeing him through her window standing with the police who were detaining him in handcuffs. Later, the witness was unable to describe him or pick him out of a photo lineup. Still, because the police did not sway her early identification, the court allowed it into evidence.
Click to expand...

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.
Click to expand...

and

So what is an "original memory?"6 The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it.
Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable—due to the reconstruction of their memory—to reconsider their initial understanding. When a witness identifies a person in a line-up, he is likely to identify that same person in later line-ups, even when the person identified is not the perpetrator. Although juries and decision-makers place great reliance on eyewitness identification, they are often unaware of the danger of false memories.
Click to expand...

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigat...012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html
Is Eyewitness Testimony Inherently Unreliable?
By Aileen P. Clare – May 28, 2012

To those who follow crime and courts, the stories are familiar and unnerving. Cornelius Dupree spent 30 years imprisoned in Texas for a 1979 rape and robbery he did not commit, largely due to a single eyewitness identification. He was freed in 2011 through new DNA evidence. Derrick Williams of Florida was freed through DNA evidence after spending 18 years in prison for a rape based on eyewitness misidentification. Johnny Pinchback, a Texas inmate convicted of a 1984 rape based on eyewitness misidentification, was freed through DNA testing after 27 years in prison. Alvin Jardine was freed through DNA testing after serving 20 years jailed in Hawaii, again due to eyewitness misidentification. Of the 21 cases on the Innocence Network’s 2011 exoneration report, 19 wrongful convictions involved eyewitness testimony. Innocence Network Report, 2011. This is consistent with statistics showing that more than three-quarters of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence relied on faulty eyewitness evidence.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
A truly amazing ability to ignore anything presented which is contrary to what he want to believe.
 
Yet every criminal investigator and court trial says otherwise.

Any competent investigator is aware of the shortcomings of eyewitness testimony.
 
Magical Realist said:
I've never heard "their answer." Only your answer. Do you speak for the science community now?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Yeah, sure. Whatever.

AlexG, Bells, Cosmictraveler, James R, Kittamaru, Russ_Watters, Spidergoat and myself all speak on behalf of the science community.
 
Magical Realist said:
LOL! You do? That's news to me. Are you all scientists now?
Click to expand...

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)

Magical Realist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Magical Realist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


Fancy_break_line.gif


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>.
 
That reminds me of a study where people "remembered" meeting Bugs Bunny at Disneyworld.
 
Daecon said:
That reminds me of a study where people "remembered" meeting Bugs Bunny at Disneyworld.
Click to expand...
*nod* there are many like it -

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

To conduct the study, a team led by psychologist Lawrence Patihis of the University of California, Irvine, recruited a sample group of people all of approximately the same age and divided them into two subgroups: those with ordinary memory and those with what is known as highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM). You’ve met people like that before, and they can be downright eerie. They’re the ones who can tell you the exact date on which particular events happened — whether in their own lives or in the news — as well as all manner of minute additional details surrounding the event that most people would forget the second they happened.

To screen for HSAM, the researchers had all the subjects take a quiz that asked such questions as “[On what date] did an Iraqi journalist hurl two shoes at President Bush?” or “What public event occurred on Oct. 11, 2002?” Those who excelled on that part of the screening would move to a second stage, in which they were given random, computer-generated dates and asked to say the day of the week on which it fell, and to recall both a personal experience that occurred that day and a public event that could be verified with a search engine.

“It was a Monday,” said one person asked about Oct. 19, 1987. “That was the day of the big stock-market crash and the cellist Jacqueline du Pré died that day.” That’s some pretty specific recall. Ultimately, 20 subjects qualified for the HSAM group and another 38 went into the ordinary-memory category. Both groups were then tested for their ability to resist developing false memories during a series of exercises designed to implant them.

In one, for example, the investigators spoke with the subjects about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and mentioned in passing the footage that had been captured of United Flight 93 crashing in Pennsylvania — footage, of course, that does not exist. In both groups — HSAM subjects and those with normal memories — about 1 in 5 people “remembered” seeing this footage when asked about it later.

“It just seemed like something was falling out of the sky,” said one of the HSAM participants. “I was just, you know, kind of stunned by watching it, you know, go down.”

Word recall was also hazy. The scientists showed participants word lists, then removed the lists and tested the subjects on words that had and hadn’t been included. The lists all contained so-called lures — words that would make subjects think of other, related ones. The words pillow, duvet and nap, for example, might lead to a false memory of seeing the word sleep. All of the participants in both groups fell for the lures, with at least eight such errors per person—though some tallied as many as 20. Both groups also performed unreliably when shown photographs and fed lures intended to make them think they’d seen details in the pictures they hadn’t. Here too, the HSAM subjects cooked up as many fake images as the ordinary folks.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top