Edmund Storms wrote:
>> >> Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena. The folks whose >> memories were recovered are apparently sincere. As to the researchers >> who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another story >> -- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis you're >> also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is >> making money from the operation. >> >> Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently remembered >> being in battles which never took place, outside of movies? If not I'll >> see if I can dig up more info on it. There is evidence that human >> memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal of >> conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff before >> it causes trouble. When you get yourself into a situation where you can >> no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using >> context, beware. (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.) >> >> If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I >> immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have >> someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I >> won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? >> Hmmm.... > > Before getting too carried away by this reasoning, I suggest you read > the books by David Jacobs. Prof. Jacobs is a professor at Temple > University who has been interviewing abductees for many years. He was > convinced of their claims when many different people from different > parts of the US described in detail the various medical instruments used > during the examination. These people did not know each other and had no > way of getting this information from normal sources. Even now, this > detail is not published and is used to test the veracity of the claims. If this information is not published, how can we test the veracity of Prof. Jacobs's claims? How do we know he is honest and sincere (aside from his own testimony, of course)? As the author of books which are, presumably, founded on the assumed veracity of the abduction stories, *his* testimony is, of course, immediately suspect -- he is making money and acquiring fame as a result of these stories! This question is, of course, a big part of the reason "reproducibility" is so important in the sciences. This appears, at first glance, to be very similar to one of the bits of testimony regarding the WTC collapse: There were violent explosions in the basement before the buildings fell. This is *very* suspicious. We know there were such explosions, in part, through the testimony of a man who was working in the basement at that time. He happens to be an amateur stage magician (which shouldn't matter) and he happens to have gone on a lecture tour (paid, of course) after 9/11 talking about his experiences (that shouldn't matter, either). But the details of his personal history *do* matter because they show that he is not disinterested (he is taking money for saying things that cast doubt on the official story) and he is experienced with delivering totally bogus statements in a convincing way (that's what magicians do, after all). So, should we believe him? Not without corroboration! Similarly, we must wonder about Professor Jacobs, and we must ask what independently verifiable support for his assertions exists. > Dr. John Mack, at Harvard Medical School, has found the same > relationship between a claimed abduction and a common memory of the > tools and procedures. Has Dr. Mack published the details of what it was he found the common thread to be? Again, as I said to start with, it's not the abductees who are the "suspicious characters" in memories of abductions -- it's the interviewer. In this case, that's Dr. Mack. > This seems to me to be very credible evidence > that could be used in any court of law to prove a legal fact. > > Ed
