On Mar 4, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
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?
If the information were published, the people testing the claims would
no longer have this tool available. But suppose you had the
information, what good would it do you? How would this help you decide
if Jacobs and the other people studying the field were honest? So,
according to you, any one who publishes his discoveries and makes some
money is suspect. In other words, the large literature based on
books cannot be believed unless you personally have tested the claims.
This might be an overstatement of how you approach the problem, but
where do you draw the line? How can someone who has such unique
information make it known to you in a way you would accept? The
possibility that beings from other planets have visited us and are
presently interacting with people, seems to me to be a subject worth
exploring in a serious way. I have talked to Jacobs personally and
I'm convinced he is honest and just as amazed by what he is
discovering as you are. In his case, he took the effort to make a
serious investigation. How does any new idea get accepted unless
people are willing to at least give the benefit of doubt to the claim
and look deeper?
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!
I see no relationship in your example to this subject. The UFO
phenomenon is investigated by hundreds of people and seen directly by
thousands. If you want reproducibility, this is a perfect example.
People reproduce the same experience, although not willingly.
Similarly, we must wonder about Professor Jacobs, and we must ask what
independently verifiable support for his assertions exists.
I have read at least a dozen books written by people who have either
experienced or have investigated the claims. I'm sure more are
available. Dr. Mack, at Harvard, supported the assertions based on his
own considerable experience. Unfortunately, he also wrote a book.
Otherwise, I would never know of his work. These are not trivial
people who have paid a high price in their careers to bring this
information to the general public. Universities do not welcome such
strange activities by their professors.
Ed
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
