Edmund Storms wrote: > > 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.
Of course they are, when he's getting the money in exchange for a simple recital of the discoveries, rather than as a result of some consequence of the discoveries. That's why we require reproducibility by third parties. There is no physical evidence for this claim. There is nothing but the researcher's word for it. Before I'd go too far believing it, I'd want *some* kind of additional evidence that it's true. People are venal. People are not always truthful. If these things were not true we could dispense not just with a lot of experimental replications, but with the locks on our front doors. > In other words, the large literature based on books cannot be believed > unless you personally have tested the claims. No, I never said that. I asked what corroboration existed. If there is only Prof. Jacobs' word for his results, then yes, I am suspicious. If one person alone got a result and nobody else did, and there was no physical evidence of the result, I would not necessarily believe that result. Does that surprise you? I don't require that I, personally, test the result, obviously! But there should be *some* independent corroboration. > 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. While that's not *exactly* the same as corroboration it's still extremely interesting, and lends a lot of credibility to it; thank you for mentioning it. > 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. I was drawing the analogy with a sole interviewer who claims to have observed a particular phenomenon in many individuals. I was asking what corroboration for that interviewer's testimony existed. > >> >> >> 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 >> >
