"The memory as
trace evidence metaphor has rich implications. LIke physical evidence, meory trace evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed, or otherwise made to porduce results tha can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the event in question (Wells, 2003).
The casual believer in the extraterrestrial explanation for UFOs could easily read my posts in this thread and surmise that what I've been saying is, "memory is fallible, so why use it for investigation." And, indeed, several have.
But the real message I'm trying to point out is that there are problems with using memory as evidence due to the methods of collection, as Wells points out. A poster above notes that I we can find many sources on the "internet" that speak about how "weak" memory is, but if we believe that then how can we believe anything we remember.
The answer to that is simple and two-fold: I think we remember many things incorrectly... but we get the
important things, particularly those things which repeat themselves and are reinforced regularly, right. It's the rare and unusual events that we must be cautious about, particularly when using them as evidence.
Wells goes on in the PDF file that I've linked to in the reference section of this post to discuss
how to go about collecting eyewitness memory in a scientific manner. The thing that both ufology and criminalistics share as problematic with collecting memory evidence is that often the investigator is working with a pre-determined result to which he/she is attempting to validate. Questions posed to the witness frequently involve only that result and avoid matters that counter it. Even the witness will often have a preconceived bias to the event. Not that bias and preconceived ideas are the only problems with using memory as evidence, but they're among the most significant.
I'm advocating the
scientific collection of memory evidence, as Wells argues. When collecting trace evidence such as blood or fingerprints, investigators go to great lengths to avoid contamination and to demonstrate methods that
discount contamination as probable (i.e. documenting handling procedures, photographing/sketching evidence
in situ, etc.). Similar cautions "tend not to be exercised in avoiding the contamination of human memory in eyewitnesses."
Reference:
Wells, G. L. & Loftus, E. F. (2003).
[PDF]Eyewitness memory for people and events[/PDF]. In A. Goldstein, Ed. Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Volume 11, Forensic psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
