Embellishments of memory: the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony
- Thread starter SkinWalker
- Start date
duendy said:
It comes from the desire to see pseudoscience and magical thinking balanced with critical thought, truth, and reason. It comes from the belief that our society can achieve more if magical thinking is put aside. It comes from the belief that, while you see me as close-minded and a "debunker," I'm open-minded and objective, whereas the typical believer in pseudoscience is far from this state of mind. But mostly it comes from my personal interest in belief systems, superstition, magical thinking and the paranormal from an anthropological point of view.
duendy said:
Really? What of my arguments are not rational?
duendy said:
I've always been open to the notion that ETI-UFOs are real. I've just not seen any evidence that suggests that we should accept this notion beyond mere speculation.
But in the interest of attempting to keep this thread on-topic, do you have some data that refutes the literature I've cited above? Is there something more to the position of ETI-UFO believers that gives more credibility to eyewitness testimony than hope? After all, this is the most relied upon bit of evidence for the UFO phenomenon: eyewitness testimony, just the sort of evidence which is unacceptable in any other science without corroborating physical evidence to put it all into context.
Perhaps paranormal events like UFOs are exempt from such eyewitness fallibility. But I doubt it.
Psychic Study of Eyewitness Reliability
Singer and Benassi (1980) conducted a study with college students that they had divided into two groups: one group was told that they were going to watch a magician pretend to be psychic; the other group was told they were about to see a demonstration of true psychic ability. Singer and Benassi's stage magician wasn't psychic and used cold reading techniques and other tricks to make it look like he was. Following the demonstration, both groups were asked their opinions and in spite of the fact that one group was told in advance it was fake, approximately two-thirds of both groups stated they believed the performer to be a genuine psychic.
They did the experiment again this time the experimenter told all students that the performer was a magician and not a real psychic before the performance. And yet, 58% still believed he had true psychic ability.
Sheep and Goats (a.k.a. Believers and Skeptics)
Believers and skeptics have preconceived notions prior to an extraordinary event (psychic reading, UFO sighting, magic show, etc.). Believers expect to see something "unexplainable, magical, alien, psychic, etc., where as skeptics expect to find the flaws in the demonstrations, pose questions that challenge the belief, expect earthly explanations for UFOs, etc.
In 1921, Eric Dingwall hypothesized that these expectations would distort eyewitness testimony: "The frame of mind in which a person goes to see magic and to a medium cannot be compared. In one case he goes either purely for amusement or possibly with the idea of discovering `how it was done,' whilst in the other he usually goes with the thought that it is possible that he will come into direct contact with the other world."
Later researchers (Wiseman and Morris, 1995) took Dingwall's hypothesis and applied a test by showing a group of sheep and goats (believers and skeptics) a film which contained fake psychic abilities and then they were asked a set of questions to rate the "paranormal content" and measure their abilities to recall information.
The sheep, as expected, rated the paranormal content of the film much higher than did the goats. The goats, however, were able to recall more information that was significant to seeing through the tricks being performed.
With regard to the UFO phenomenon, I think what we have is a case of sheep and goats. The believers (sheep) expect to see alien space ships, and therefore see them whenever event occur that goats (skeptics) would typically find better, more earthly explanations for, if they bothered with the sighting at all.
In the end, we have a body of "sightings" that ETI-UFO believers look at as credible evidence for the existence of alien visitation to our planet. But what this really represents, for the most part, is the biased, one-sided accounts of "sheep" that saw exactly what they expected to see. Skeptics see things in the sky too. They just don't bother with them or recognize them for what they are and, therefore, don't report them.
That's not to say that all "sightings" are explainable or that all sightings reported are from people who were believers to begin with. But I think this is the case in the vast majority of all sightings.
References:
Dingwall, E. (1921). Magic and mediumship. Psychic Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 206-219.
Singer, B. and V. A. Benassi. (1980). Fooling some of the people all of the time. Skeptical Inquirer, Winter, pp. 17-24.
Wiseman, R. J. and R. L. Morris. (1995) Recalling pseudo-psychic demonstrations. British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 113-125.
That’s precisely why I didn't specify "UFO" related events and, instead, I said, "[w]e're talking about people who misidentify unusual events, perhaps because of stress or excitement. But you're correct. I cannot think of a UFO sighting in which a more prosaic or mundane explanation was suggested other than alien spacecraft. But this isn't necessarily a wrong thing to do if you think about it. The position of those skeptical of the a priori assumption that UFOs are generally (or even sometimes) the equivalent of alien spacecraft is that other, more mundane and prosaic, explanations are at least as likely and therefore have to be considered as well. Until these explanations can be ruled out, one cannot make the assumption that we have a case of alien visitation.
Indeed, I did. I wasn't attempting to fault you for your choice of words so much as to point out the natural tendency for people to inject hyperbole into their words. I do it as well.
True enough, however, I would argue that most scientists and researchers would revel in the knowledge that an actual alien being was before them or that alien visitation could be demonstrated. I know I would have many questions and lines of investigation that I'd want to pursue just in the development and evolution of the being's culture. I'd let the geeks pour over it's technology, I'd be fascinated by the origins of it's species and how this could be compared and contrasted with earthly evolution.
The idea that an alien species exists elsewhere in the universe isn't all that far-fetched to me. I would expect that Earth really isn't all that special. I would, however, expect that such a species would experience the same costs of energy and resources that we do in attempting space travel within even their own systems, though it is also probable that some civilizations elsewhere have much better technology with regard to energy usage. But the notion is far-fetched that one of these civilizations scoured the universe and sought out our own, which is still invisible to much of our own galaxy on the electromagnetic spectrum, since the first radio waves are still propagating.
It is nothing like crossing the Atlantic for Europeans in the 1500's. Space is big. Really big, to quote one of my favorite authors. Douglass Adams created things like the Infinite Improbability Drive to make it smaller, but just because we can do these things in Earth fiction is no indication that they can be done by some wildly advanced civilization. And if they could, that they would have enough interest in us or that they'd even know we exist (the universe is big. Really big).
The "unreliable" witness who was hullicinating, really saw swamp gas. 
This post is nothing more than skinwalkers attempt to justify his "unreliable witness testimony fetish in UFO cases".
I am not sure why, but skeptics LOVE pointing out how unreliable witnesses are, yet USE WITNESSES TO DISPROVE WITNESSES.
This post is nothing more than skinwalkers attempt to justify his "unreliable witness testimony fetish in UFO cases".
I am not sure why, but skeptics LOVE pointing out how unreliable witnesses are, yet USE WITNESSES TO DISPROVE WITNESSES.
duendy said:
Duendy, SkinWalker has said before he will not comment on UFO cases he cannot explain. Or that he will "avoid them because he has nothing to say, or debunk as I would say". If that's not fanatical, nothing is. As to the why. People like Skinwalker believe UFOLOGY prostitutes real science. They are also waiting for an alien body, craft or artifact to prove aliens exist, BEFORE they believe one damn alien/UFO story.
They demand 100% proof of ETI, and untill they get that, unfairly critizise the only proof we have at the moment. In fact, they would even ridicule the use of the word proof with eye-witness testimony... it goes on and on.
But, maybe one of the fanatical debunkers can answer it. Why do you feel compelled to debunk UFO cases? Why do you always leap to the skeptical side? Maybe you don't, but when you only comment on cases in which you can debunk it we are left with only seeing it as a sheer fanatical skeptism.
I've yet to see any of the ETI-UFO believers point out any data to corroborate the general reliability of eyewitness testimony.
by SkinWalker:
"The idea that an alien species exists elsewhere in the universe isn't all that far-fetched to me. I would expect that Earth really isn't all that special. I would, however, expect that such a species would experience the same costs of energy and resources that we do in attempting space travel within even their own systems, though it is also probable that some civilizations elsewhere have much better technology with regard to energy usage. But the notion is far-fetched that one of these civilizations scoured the universe and sought out our own, which is still invisible to much of our own galaxy on the electromagnetic spectrum, since the first radio waves are still propagating."
===============================================================
OK, SkinWalker, I have heard this argument before, 'how could they (an alien species)
possibly know we exist.' I have thought of one possible way, just a thought, mind you.
How does a human body, or any living organism with a brain, control its movements?
Nerve impulses that originate in the brain and travel through the nervous system. Aren't these nerve impulses electromagnetic in origin? I do not know on what frequency
they travel, or if all living organisms use a similar frequency. Possibly a highly advanced
species can recognize the frequency of life. Possibly all living things on Earth have been broadcasting on these frequencies since life evolved on Earth. All I am saying is,
we humans don't KNOW everything so far, and never will, but we will discover more
secrets as time goes on, assuming we survive. What will humanity look like in fifty
million years, we it still be human as we are today, or will we evolve into an advanced
species, as different from us as we are from the primative apes? How could they get
here over the vast distances of space? Don't forget, they don't have to come here
'from a distant galaxie a billion light years away.' There are thousands of suns within
50 light years of Earth. For instance, Zeta Reticuli (sp) is about 33 light years away.
It is very similar to our own sun in both size and radiation intensity. It is, however,
several BILLION years older than our sun. That is only one example. Legimate science,
recognized science, already has several theories as to how the 'speed of light' and
distance may be able to be overcome with enough knowledge and technology, not in
the next few years, but what about another 50 million years of evolution? No, I have
no 'proof' that we are being visited, and I do not know for sure. But I did witness
something personally that I cannot explain, that causes me to not dismiss the possibility out of hand. I just do not know, and I state the same.
"The idea that an alien species exists elsewhere in the universe isn't all that far-fetched to me. I would expect that Earth really isn't all that special. I would, however, expect that such a species would experience the same costs of energy and resources that we do in attempting space travel within even their own systems, though it is also probable that some civilizations elsewhere have much better technology with regard to energy usage. But the notion is far-fetched that one of these civilizations scoured the universe and sought out our own, which is still invisible to much of our own galaxy on the electromagnetic spectrum, since the first radio waves are still propagating."
===============================================================
OK, SkinWalker, I have heard this argument before, 'how could they (an alien species)
possibly know we exist.' I have thought of one possible way, just a thought, mind you.
How does a human body, or any living organism with a brain, control its movements?
Nerve impulses that originate in the brain and travel through the nervous system. Aren't these nerve impulses electromagnetic in origin? I do not know on what frequency
they travel, or if all living organisms use a similar frequency. Possibly a highly advanced
species can recognize the frequency of life. Possibly all living things on Earth have been broadcasting on these frequencies since life evolved on Earth. All I am saying is,
we humans don't KNOW everything so far, and never will, but we will discover more
secrets as time goes on, assuming we survive. What will humanity look like in fifty
million years, we it still be human as we are today, or will we evolve into an advanced
species, as different from us as we are from the primative apes? How could they get
here over the vast distances of space? Don't forget, they don't have to come here
'from a distant galaxie a billion light years away.' There are thousands of suns within
50 light years of Earth. For instance, Zeta Reticuli (sp) is about 33 light years away.
It is very similar to our own sun in both size and radiation intensity. It is, however,
several BILLION years older than our sun. That is only one example. Legimate science,
recognized science, already has several theories as to how the 'speed of light' and
distance may be able to be overcome with enough knowledge and technology, not in
the next few years, but what about another 50 million years of evolution? No, I have
no 'proof' that we are being visited, and I do not know for sure. But I did witness
something personally that I cannot explain, that causes me to not dismiss the possibility out of hand. I just do not know, and I state the same.
SkinWalker said:
Do you remember the guy, I believe named Randall involved in the Rendelsham case?
He said he wanted to pull a prank on his buddies, so he started driving in a circle and ran some sort of siren and claimed that what he did, caused the "UFO INCIDENT" at Rendelsham.
You believed him. That's one eye-witness testimony that you seem to have believed.
I don't particularly understand the point of this thread. Sure, witnesses can embellish anything. If there is some kind of other evidence, that can corroberate their story then it's no longer UNRELIABLE.
What's the big mystery here?? I've illustrated several eye-witness testimony on here, that's backed up by physical evidence. In both instances, debunker's had nothing to say.
You and I both know, when I corroberate an eye-witness testimony with physical evidence you avoid responding. Instead you would find those cases which DO NOT HAVE the corroberation and pounce on those.
As for a case that has been corroberated. The man with the buttons is one of my favorites.
What's the big mystery here?? I've illustrated several eye-witness testimony on here, that's backed up by physical evidence. In both instances, debunker's had nothing to say.
You and I both know, when I corroberate an eye-witness testimony with physical evidence you avoid responding. Instead you would find those cases which DO NOT HAVE the corroberation and pounce on those.
As for a case that has been corroberated. The man with the buttons is one of my favorites.
The point of this thread was to bring into question "evidence" that is simply witness testimony. Starman and you have continually claimed that because of the sheer bulk of people who saw some sort of "UFO" that there have to be aliens. ( sorry to single you out starman)
Skin was trying to bring to light the point that when people see things under stressful conditions, they tend to be mistaken on what they saw, so this is unreliable without evidence backing it up.
When have you posted anything with back up evidence? Can you link this please?
Skin was trying to bring to light the point that when people see things under stressful conditions, they tend to be mistaken on what they saw, so this is unreliable without evidence backing it up.
When have you posted anything with back up evidence? Can you link this please?
2inquisitive said:
The problem with Zeta Reticuli is that it might be too old. The older stars formed at a time when there wasn't enough abundance of heavy metals may not have planets capable of supporting life (as we would recognize it). Indeed, ZR hasn't been demonstrated to have a planetary system, though this could simply mean that there are no planets of sufficient mass to be detected. But you do realize that "thousands of suns 50 light years from Earth" isn't many, right? On a cosmic scale, that's very, very few.
2inquisitive said:
There is no other kind.
2inquisitive said:
I don't doubt that. But again, it goes back to how do you apply that technology? The civilization with the technology not only needs to know we are here, but needs to have a reason to come see us rather than other civilizations –assuming that civilizations are common in the universe. But the science is currently speculating about "wormholes" and "folding space" not surpassing the speed of light. Just because scientists are speculating about such things doesn't mean that some other civilization has developed the technology to make it possible.
But that's assuming that after 50 million years of evolution, a species would actually develop technology at all. Perhaps they have 50 million years more intelligence, but a culture that prevents them from exploring the galaxy or leaving their own continent, much less their own planet. We have to avoid applying anthropomorphic traits to assumed extraterrestrial species. We cannot assume that other intelligent species would be interested in exploration or even interested in us. Indeed, there's very little that we can assume about an extraterrestrial intelligence.
2inquisitive said:
It could have been an angel from god. That's at least as likely as the alien being hypothesis.
btimsah said:
No. I don't remember that. Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else? But at any rate, a prank would support the hypothesis that eyewitnesses will embellish accounts when given an event that is unusual or suggestive of preconceived beliefs like UFOs or ghosts.
btimsah said:
I'm not surprised.
btimsah said:
That's what I've been saying: eyewitness testimony (also known as anecdotal account) must be corroborated by physical evidence to offer context, otherwise it is useless.
btimsah said:
I've yet to see one of your cases you mention, perhaps you could post a link or post number? "The man with the buttons" doesn't sound familiar.
I have a hypothesis that given an unusual event that is interpreted as a UFO, """people will embellish the observations to a point at which things will be included that are simply not there."""
I beleive this would definitely be true for some people. Some people are just plain wackos, or need the drama in their lives.
""I'm very tempted to test this hypothesis using controlled experiment. But I live under the approach vector for D/FW Airport, so if I release any lit balloons, I might cause too much hysteria!"""
Haha, no kidding.
Your capacity for commitment and ability to continually follow through is indeed inspiring.
Peace
P.S. I still think you should put your intelligence towards getting rich first!!!
Then come back to this forum,
I am sure these same discussions will be here.
I beleive this would definitely be true for some people. Some people are just plain wackos, or need the drama in their lives.
""I'm very tempted to test this hypothesis using controlled experiment. But I live under the approach vector for D/FW Airport, so if I release any lit balloons, I might cause too much hysteria!"""
Haha, no kidding.
Your capacity for commitment and ability to continually follow through is indeed inspiring.
Peace
P.S. I still think you should put your intelligence towards getting rich first!!!
Then come back to this forum,
I am sure these same discussions will be here.
by SkinWalker:
"The problem with Zeta Reticuli is that it might be too old. The older stars formed at a time when there wasn't enough abundance of heavy metals may not have planets capable of supporting life (as we would recognize it)."
==============================================================
I think you might be a little confused here. Zeta Reticuli is NOT a first generation star.
It is old, but the universe was already over 6 billion years old when it formed. The first
generation stars indeed were absent heavy metals, but they were HUGE stars that
used up their nuclear fuel and exploded into supernova quickly, estimated to sometimes
have burned of only a few million years. The supernova process is where the heavy
metals are formed. By the time Zeta Reticuli was formed, heavy metals were abundant
in the universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by SkinWalker:
"We cannot assume that other intelligent species would be interested in exploration or even interested in us. Indeed, there's very little that we can assume about an extraterrestrial intelligence."
==============================================================
I would state there is very little that we CANNOT assume about an extraterrestrial
intelligence. To do otherwise is a human biased viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
by SkinWalker:
"It could have been an angel from god. That's at least as likely as the alien being hypothesis."
=============================================================
It seems very likely to me that Moses would have interpreted the event that way.
However, human knowledge and understanding due to science has given us a greater
knowledge of the universe. The scientific method has allowed us to narrow the possibilities of observations. We see no evidence of an omnipotent being that created
the universe and oversees our daily lives. However, we do see life may be created
under the right conditions and may, indeed is likely, to exist in the universe. I prefer
to think a visitation from one of these lifeforms is a much more scientific viewpoint
than an 'angel from God'. You, however, are welcome to think it was an angel from
God if you prefer to eliminate science.
"The problem with Zeta Reticuli is that it might be too old. The older stars formed at a time when there wasn't enough abundance of heavy metals may not have planets capable of supporting life (as we would recognize it)."
==============================================================
I think you might be a little confused here. Zeta Reticuli is NOT a first generation star.
It is old, but the universe was already over 6 billion years old when it formed. The first
generation stars indeed were absent heavy metals, but they were HUGE stars that
used up their nuclear fuel and exploded into supernova quickly, estimated to sometimes
have burned of only a few million years. The supernova process is where the heavy
metals are formed. By the time Zeta Reticuli was formed, heavy metals were abundant
in the universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by SkinWalker:
"We cannot assume that other intelligent species would be interested in exploration or even interested in us. Indeed, there's very little that we can assume about an extraterrestrial intelligence."
==============================================================
I would state there is very little that we CANNOT assume about an extraterrestrial
intelligence. To do otherwise is a human biased viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
by SkinWalker:
"It could have been an angel from god. That's at least as likely as the alien being hypothesis."
=============================================================
It seems very likely to me that Moses would have interpreted the event that way.
However, human knowledge and understanding due to science has given us a greater
knowledge of the universe. The scientific method has allowed us to narrow the possibilities of observations. We see no evidence of an omnipotent being that created
the universe and oversees our daily lives. However, we do see life may be created
under the right conditions and may, indeed is likely, to exist in the universe. I prefer
to think a visitation from one of these lifeforms is a much more scientific viewpoint
than an 'angel from God'. You, however, are welcome to think it was an angel from
God if you prefer to eliminate science.
2inquisitive said:
Point taken. You're probably right. Even still, "thousands of stars" is still very, very few when the entire cosmos is considered. The odds of one of these thousands supporting life that not only evolved to intelligence, THEN developed technology, THEN developed technology sufficient to conquer the prohibitive distances, THEN developed a reason to visit other stars, THEN discovered that our little planet existed, THEN actually came here is at least as remote as the god hypothesis.
2inquisitive said:
I consider myself an agnostic atheist, but I think it ironic that ETI-UFO believers chose when it is convenient to invoke the scientific method.
Squeak22 said:
Well, pointing out some cases with strong evidence to backup a witness testimony will not change a skeptics mind as to the "unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony", so why bother?
Okay, okay, here you go.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=43813
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44228
Both of these cases deal with eyewitnesses, but with SOME corroberation. There are other's, but these are some of the one's I've read about and found rather interesting.
It's not a matter of changing a "skeptic's mind" about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. It's about eyewitness testimony being inherently unreliable without corroborating physical evidence. Period. Regardless of the desire for an eyewitness to be believable, they generally are not.
But if there is some data that show differently, show it. Lets discuss it.
But if there is some data that show differently, show it. Lets discuss it.
There's no physical corroboration with either that isn't also dependent upon anecdote. Indeed, the first link was well-discussed by me in that thread. Cash was ill before her alleged sighting. Validating her physical evidence and physical conditions both before and after her alleged sighting met with difficulty. Even a judge wasn't presented with enough evidence to rule in her favor.
The second link I can't comment on because your post is the only information I know of about the case. The best physical evidence I was able to discern from the story was the guy had a "grid-like" burn pattern on his chest. Wow. There's nothing on Earth that can do that, so it couldn't have been faked. Admittedly, I haven't read the thread since you posted it, so if there was other corroborating evidence that didn't rely on anecdote tell us what it was. By the way, the burns required anecdotal account to link to any "UFO."
The second link I can't comment on because your post is the only information I know of about the case. The best physical evidence I was able to discern from the story was the guy had a "grid-like" burn pattern on his chest. Wow. There's nothing on Earth that can do that, so it couldn't have been faked. Admittedly, I haven't read the thread since you posted it, so if there was other corroborating evidence that didn't rely on anecdote tell us what it was. By the way, the burns required anecdotal account to link to any "UFO."
SkinWalker said:
That's what every case in life is built upon.. Testimony, then the physical evidence. You can make up any reason you want to disbelieve her story, SkinWalker. However, it still contains some corroberation. Nice try though.
You would conclude he "could have" faked it anyways, so don't waste my or anyones time by reading about it.
Of course he could have faked it. It's far more likely that he did fake it than the notion that an alien spacecraft came along and branded him. Occam's Razor applies very neatly here.
There's no established fact of alien spacecraft.
There's no established fact of alien spacecraft that "brand" people or burn them.
There is an established fact of people who will invent stories for a variety of reasons.
There is an established fact of people who believe in things so religiously that they will lie to promote their beliefs or legitimize them.
There is an established fact of people seeking status, legitimacy, and affirmation using whatever means will provide this.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Anecdotal account (eyewitness testimony) is the least credible and least extraordinary form of data that can be used as evidence.
I've yet to see anyone demonstrate otherwise with empirical data.
There's no established fact of alien spacecraft.
There's no established fact of alien spacecraft that "brand" people or burn them.
There is an established fact of people who will invent stories for a variety of reasons.
There is an established fact of people who believe in things so religiously that they will lie to promote their beliefs or legitimize them.
There is an established fact of people seeking status, legitimacy, and affirmation using whatever means will provide this.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Anecdotal account (eyewitness testimony) is the least credible and least extraordinary form of data that can be used as evidence.
I've yet to see anyone demonstrate otherwise with empirical data.