Is it me or is this site in its death throes?

[Kittamaru]

I'm waiting for those to show up.

So now you are disparaging the entire membership of SciForums...

The fact that you seem to wish to claim to be the "sole sane person in a sea of insanity" speaks volumes...

The simple fact is, you still have yet to back your claims here, as you were specifically instructed by James to do, rather than your historic (and current) trend of jumping topics as soon as you are cornered.

 

[billvon]

How can people live their everyday lives if they can't accurately tell what's in front of their car when they are driving or what they are seeing in their fridge when they are hungry?

You don't need to be accurate to drive your car or eat from your fridge. If you can't tell a bike from a motorcycle that's OK. Just avoid hitting either one; you don't need to know the difference. Likewise, if you can't tell the difference between orange juice and mango juice it doesn't really matter. You can drink either one.

However, there are some cases where this is NOT true - where it matters what you grab out of your fridge. People with food allergies can be injured or killed by eating the wrong thing out of your fridge. And people do this quite often - ~20,000 people a year are hospitalized and ~200 people die every year from eating something they are allergic to. This is from a pool of ~15 million people with food allergies, of which ~ 1 million have serious (i.e. can be life threatening) allergies.

So that's actually a good example. Every year about 1 in 5 people who are at risk for serious allergic reaction can't accurately tell what they are eating.

How can science proceed if scientists can't be trusted to report their own experiments and observations?

By repeating them over and over, so the odds of error go down.

Everything that human beings know and the conduct of their entire lives depends on their experiences being generally accurate.

As we've seen, when their lives DO depend on their observations being accurate, humans don't do very well.

Just because mistakes and errors are possible and even common, doesn't mean that human experience can simply be dismissed or that all of our perceptions can be assumed to be mistakes and errors.

No one assumes all our perceptions are mistakes and errors. That's just as wrong as assuming that all our perceptions are accurate.

 

[Magical Realist]

As we've seen, when their lives DO depend on their observations being accurate, humans don't do very well.

Complete bullshit. Every one who drives is in a situation where their lives depend on the accuracy of their observations. Tens of millions of people successfully drive from one location to the next every day, even in rainy conditions, without having accidents. That screams loudly for the accuracy of eyewitness experience.

 

[Kittamaru]

Complete bullshit. Every one who drives is in a situation where their lives depend on the accuracy of their observations. Tens of millions of people successfully drive from one location to the next every day, even in rainy conditions, without having accidents. That's screams loudly for the accuracy of eyewitness experience.

Demonstrably false... I've personally had to drive when I've lost a contact lens, and it leaves me unable to differentiate if what in front of me is a car, a truck, a bus, or a motorcycle - it's just a blob. I cannot read any street signs.

yet, every time it has happened, I was able to successfully and safely navigate home.

Also, real-time observation is not the same as recalling a memory of a potentially traumatic event sometimes weeks or months after the event. You no doubt know this, and are attempting to use straw-man arguments because you cannot successfully argue the actual point.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

begone foul troll...

"Now, Yazata, I am calling you out - this is a strawman argument, intellectual dishonesty, and is disgusting"

Back your claims with good, sound logic and evidence, as the rules dictate. End of story.

Kitta... please... implore James R to give you final say in Sciforum moderation for just 6 mounths... an let the results speek for themself.!!!

 

[Magical Realist]

Also, real-time observation is not the same as recalling a memory of a potentially traumatic event sometimes weeks or months after the event.

Accurate memory is as much in play while driving as accurate perception is. The driver behind me is about to pass. You put a CD in your CD player. You remember the driver behind you and you change lanes to allow them room. Or you remember you have to get into the right lane to make your exit. Or you remember the directions to the store. Or you remember the speed limit drops to 35 in a certain zone. Or you remember an upcoming chughole and you change lanes for it. Or you remember the I5 backs up at 4:30 and you take an alternate route. ETC ETC ETC..

 

[Kittamaru]

Accurate memory is as much in play while driving as accurate perception is. The driver behind me is about to pass. You put a CD in your CD player. You remember the driver behind you and you change lanes to allow them room. Or you remember you have to get into the right lane to make your exit. Or you remember the directions to the store. Or you remember the speed limit drops to 35 in a certain zone. ETC ETC ETC..

First of all - wrong. Short term memory vs long term memory, not to mention that you are conflating "memory" to "observation"... you can observe something, and react to it, without committing it to memory - first and foremost, certainly you are aware of autonomous reactions, right? Certainly you don't think pulling away from a pain stimulus, or closing your eyes in response to an impending impact to the face, requires ANY input from cognitive memory...

Beyond that, your point is... what, exactly? How does the ability to remember something seconds after an event (working memory) have any bearing on the ability to accurately recall details about an event weeks later (long term memory)? What, pray tell, does any of that have to do with the ability for memory to be oh so easily manipulated?

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.

Face it MR - your entire premise is flawed. The fact that you aren't even attempting to procure facts to back it up is just the icing on the cake.

 

[Magical Realist]

Also, real-time observation is not the same as recalling a memory of a potentially traumatic event sometimes weeks or months after the event. You no doubt know this, and are attempting to use straw-man arguments because you cannot successfully argue the actual point.

So now you're saying eyewitness accounts ARE reliable but just not reliably remembered weeks and months afterwards? Watch those goalposts run!

 

[Kittamaru]

So now you're saying eyewitness accounts ARE reliable but just not reliably remembered weeks and months afterwards? Watch those goalposts run!

Where, pray tell, did I say that? Quote me, now. It is you who is twisting quotes AND moving the goalposts:

You made the claim that the ability to react to changing situations whilst in the situation (such as driving a car) means that memory is inherently trustworthy.

Accurate memory is as much in play while driving as accurate perception is. The driver behind me is about to pass. You put a CD in your CD player. You remember the driver behind you and you change lanes to allow them room.

You are using that to try and claim that same memory is trustworthy for eye-witness testimony, despite the fact that these "eye witnesses" testify days, weeks, or even MONTHS after the event, and it has been categorically and repeatedly PROVEN the differences between short term, long term, and working memory.

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds, and you are yet again violating forum rules:

Knowingly posting false or misleading information
I15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.

Back your claims, MR - you will not be given another verbal warning on this.

Claims you have yet to support:

So now you're saying eyewitness accounts ARE reliable but just not reliably remembered weeks and months afterwards? Watch those goalposts run!

You will quote where I said "eyewitness accounts are reliable but not reliably remembered weeks and months afterwards"

Your self-righteous outrage doesn't impress me. It always seems abit contrived and propped up--a convenient excuse to flame and preach ad nauseum. So you'll excuse me while I take it all with a grain of salt.

You will support your claim of "self-righteous outrage", "flaming", and "preaching".

Doesn't even come close to the number of convictions of the guilty based in eyewitness testimony. Those must number in the tens of thousands.

and

Not near as often as witnesses being truthful and guilty people being convicted.

You will support your claim that eye witness testimony is more often accurate than inaccurate.

You have made these claims. Back them.

 

[Magical Realist]

You made the claim that the ability to react to changing situations whilst in the situation (such as driving a car) means that memory is inherently trustworthy.

All memory is in play while driving. The directions to a store. The memory of a chughole. Driving itself. The backing up of I5. Longterm and shortterm and working memory. All in play while driving and very accurate at getting us safely to our destinations.

So tell me, is eyewitness testimony moments or even hours after an event reliable or unreliable? You've basically changed the goalposts to memory flaws in accounts weeks and months and years after the event.

 

[Kittamaru]

All memory is in play while driving. The directions to a store. The memory of a chughole. Driving itself. The backing up of I5. Longterm and shortterm and working memory. All in play while driving and very accurate at getting us safely to our destinations.

So you wish to claim that witnessing an event AS IT UNFOLDS is somehow the same as attempting to retell it later, despite evidence that they are not equivalent?

One more claim for you to support. You are at 4 unsupported claims.

So tell me, is eyewitness testimony moments or even hours after an event reliable or unreliable? You've basically changed to goalposts to memory flaws in accounts weeks and months and years after the event.

Is it unreliable? Certainly -

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.

Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses.5 For this reason, lawyers closely question witnesses regarding the accuracy of their memories and about any possible "assistance" from others in the formation of their present memories. However, psychologists have long recognized that gap filling and reliance on assumptions are necessary to function in our society. For example, if we did not assume that mail will be delivered, or that the supermarkets will continue to stock bread, we would behave quite differently than we do. We are constantly filling in the gaps in our recollection and interpreting things we hear. For instance, while on the subway we might hear garbled words like "next," "transfer," and "train." Building on our assumptions and knowledge, we may put together the actual statement: "Next stop 53rd Street, transfer available to the E train." Indeed, we may even remember having heard the full statement.

In another part of the Tversky-Marsh study, participants were asked to play prosecutors presenting a summation to the jury.8 Participants first read a murder story, where two men were suspects. Participants were then asked either to prepare a neutral recounting of all they remembered about one suspect, or to prepare a summation to the jury about one suspect. Later, participants were asked to recall the original story. Participants who wrote summations recalled more incriminating details and wrongly attributed details among suspects more often than participants who originally wrote a neutral recounting.

It goes on and on.

I believe this argument was had once before...

 

[Magical Realist]

So you wish to claim that witnessing an event AS IT UNFOLDS is somehow the same as attempting to retell it later, despite evidence that they are not equivalent?

Where did I say that? Support it with a quote or admit you are twisting my words.

 

[Kittamaru]

Where did I say that? Support it with a quote or admit you are twisting my words.

I already did - I quoted you in the post.

You are trolling, and refusing to back your claims.

 

[Magical Realist]

So you wish to claim that witnessing an event AS IT UNFOLDS is somehow the same as attempting to retell it later, despite evidence that they are not equivalent?

One more claim for you to support. You are at 4 unsupported claims.



Is it unreliable? Certainly -

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.

Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses.5 For this reason, lawyers closely question witnesses regarding the accuracy of their memories and about any possible "assistance" from others in the formation of their present memories. However, psychologists have long recognized that gap filling and reliance on assumptions are necessary to function in our society. For example, if we did not assume that mail will be delivered, or that the supermarkets will continue to stock bread, we would behave quite differently than we do. We are constantly filling in the gaps in our recollection and interpreting things we hear. For instance, while on the subway we might hear garbled words like "next," "transfer," and "train." Building on our assumptions and knowledge, we may put together the actual statement: "Next stop 53rd Street, transfer available to the E train." Indeed, we may even remember having heard the full statement.

In another part of the Tversky-Marsh study, participants were asked to play prosecutors presenting a summation to the jury.8 Participants first read a murder story, where two men were suspects. Participants were then asked either to prepare a neutral recounting of all they remembered about one suspect, or to prepare a summation to the jury about one suspect. Later, participants were asked to recall the original story. Participants who wrote summations recalled more incriminating details and wrongly attributed details among suspects more often than participants who originally wrote a neutral recounting.

It goes on and on.

I believe this argument was had once before...

So you're claiming both long term and short term memory, which are totally at play in getting millions of drivers to their destinations everyday, are unreliable?

 

[Magical Realist]

I already did - I quoted you in the post.

You are trolling, and refusing to back your claims.

Ignored from henceforth..

 

[Kittamaru]

So you're claiming both long term and short term memory, which are totally at play in getting millions of drivers to their destinations everyday, are unreliable?

I believe that study spoke for itself. The fact that you dislike it because it contradicts your desired narrative is your problem.

Ignored from henceforth..

In other words, you are running away because you cannot support your claims. Fair enough - I accept your concession. Perhaps next time you will attempt to argue actual facts?

 

[Magical Realist]

I was just infracted by Kittamaru again for nothing. I also pm'd James R and Bells about this bullshit. Warning to all members. This is the only way this moderator can win an argument--by abusing his moderator power. I suggest we all ignore him.

 

[billvon]

Complete bullshit. Every one who drives is in a situation where their lives depend on the accuracy of their observations.

Nonsense. No one needs to be able to tell a bicycle from a motorcycle to avoid them both. No one needs to be able to tell an ambulance from a fire truck to avoid them both. All they need to see is an object to be able to avoid it.

And even then they fail regularly - there are over 5 million motor vehicle accidents a year.

Tens of millions of people successfully drive from one location to the next every day, even in rainy conditions, without having accidents. That's screams loudly for the accuracy of eyewitness experience.

That screams loudly that people can see obstacles. Doesn't mean they can tell bicycles from motorcycles.

UFO eyewitnesses see things in the sky. That screams loudly that they saw something. Doesn't mean they can tell alien spaceships from airplanes.

 

[billvon]

I was just infracted by Kittamaru again . . .

Good! The system works.

 

[Kittamaru]

I was just infracted by Kittamaru again for nothing. I also pm'd James R and Bells about this bullshit. Warning to all members. This is the only way this moderator can win an argument--by abusing his moderator power. I suggest we all ignore him.

Hardly... you were infracted in accordance with established SciForums site rules AND the directive of one of our Administrators. Since he has no responded to my request to publish it, I will do so to illustrate:

Magical Realist has been in breach of our posting guidelines for some time now. This stops here.

In future, MR will post a critical analysis of any anecdotes he chooses to present on this forum. This will include evidence for and against the veracity of his anecdotes. Moreover, MR will be willing to discuss the details and circumstances and veracity of any anecdotes he posts, and will not post another unrelated one until discussion of the previous one is complete.

Failing that, MR will receive further warnings in accordance with our published policies.