Tales of telepathic dogmen

Quote:No, eyewitness accounts are what they think happened. What actually happened can only be determined by verification.

No...the facts are provided by eyewitnesses. And verified by more eyewitness accounts. That's just the way it is.

(May 3, 2018 08:16 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:No, eyewitness accounts are what they think happened. What actually happened can only be determined by verification.

No...the facts are provided by eyewitnesses. And verified by more eyewitness accounts. That's just the way it is.

However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Experts have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is fallible.[1] It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals. A growing body of research now supports this speculation, indicating that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined.[3][4][5] This may be due to the fact that details of unpleasant emotional events are recalled poorly compared to neutral events. States of high emotional arousal, which occur during a stressful or traumatic event, lead to less efficient memory processing.[6] The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony. It is important to inform the public about the flawed nature of eyewitness memory and the difficulties relating to its use in the criminal justice system so that eyewitness accounts are not viewed as the absolute truth.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory

Research has shown that mock juries are often unable to distinguish between a false and accurate eyewitness testimony. "Jurors" often appear to correlate the confidence level of the witness with the accuracy of their testimony.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness...eliability

I know I've told/shown you all this before, so it can only be your willful ignorance that keeps you saying such stupid things, and your pseudo-religious dogmatism that makes you so confident.


Again, where's the photo mentioned in your OP? Or is that just another part of the claim you take on faith alone? O_o

LOL! I've already blown that "eyewitnesses are unreliable" internet meme out of the water in Sci Forums. Notice there's never any comparison of how many times eyewitnesses have SOLVED cases. It's always some random number of suspect identifications (only a small part of eyewitness testimony) being wrong that is stated, as if there are not tens of thousands of cases solved every day across this nation based on what people actually see. There is no way human perception is suddenly too flawed to firmly rely on. We do it every day. We drive thousands of miles based on accurate perception of the road before us. The "eyewitnesses are unreliable" meme is merely an artifact of the online debunker community trying to discount eyewitness accounts in the investigation of anomalous phenomena. And it is a number skewed to sound more significant than it is. It isn't.

(May 3, 2018 08:48 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL! I've already blown that "eyewitnesses are unreliable" internet meme out of the water in Sci Forums. Notice there's never any comparison of how many times eyewitnesses have SOLVED cases. It's always some random number of eyewitness identification (only a small part of eyewitness testimony) being wrong that is stated, as if there are not thousands of cases solved every day across this nation based on what people actually see. There is no way human perception is suddenly too flawed to rely on. We do it every day. We drive thousands of miles based on accurate perception of the road before us. The "eyewitnesses are unreliable" meme is merely an artifact of the online debunker community trying to discount eyewitness accounts in the investigation of anomalous phenomena.

It's not a meme, moron, it's scientific research results, gratuitously cited in those links. And you'd have to show me where you supposedly blew anything out of the water for me to even remotely believe you're constantly lying ass.

Yes, eyewitnesses have led to guilty verdicts, but research has shown that juries cannot accurately judge eyewitness testimony (judging it only on apparent witness confidence, when compared to later exonerating evidence). Again: "The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony." IOW, when there wasn't reliable corroborating evidence, 75% of eyewitness testimony was flat out wrong. That's not a "small part". And the vast majority of solved cases involve far more evidence.

"Suddenly"? Human perception has always been flawed, which is why we developed other ways to verify observations. Speaking of "perception of the road", auto accidents are a leading cause of death. But you're also not talking about mundane perceptions of things you see everyday and everyone is thoroughly familiar with. Unreliable eyewitnesses are scientifically demonstrated, and you're anti-science screeds prove your pseudo-religious dogmatic need to shield your superstitious beliefs against all reason.

Again, for the third or fourth time, where's the photo mentioned in your OP? O_o

Quote:Yes, eyewitnesses have led to guilty verdicts,

Eyewitnesses lead to far more criminals being arrested and convicted than not. Literally tens of thousands times every day in courtrooms and police stations all across the nation. I was attacked by 2 black kids in the park. My brother in law punched me in the face. The little girl was abducted by a man in a blue ski mask driving a yellow van. The bank was robbed by a large elderly man with a red hoodie. We are constantly relying on perception to solve crimes. And we are constantly relying on perception to get thru our day. Identifying people, objects, street signs, other cars, buildings, trees, etc. You'd have to be an idiot to believe this false meme of eyewitness experience being unreliable. It's like saying my car isn't infallible and could break down, and therefore it is unreliable. Bullshit. Eyewitnessing is the most reliable faculty we have and is perfectly reliable in knowing what is happening right in front of us, particularly when it is something spectacular and emotionally jolting like a giant dog walking on its hind legs. This is just another case of debunkers desperately twisting science to support their own agenda. Like somehow, when those people saw a dogman, their eyes just weren't working right. Or maybe they remember it differently from how it actually happened because they wanted so badly to see a dogman. Who the fuck WANTS to see a dogman in front of them?
lol!

Arrested, yes. Convicted, no. Without corroborating evidence, any such conviction has a high rate of being overturned, and prosecutors know better than to try those cases.

Again, everyday experiences aren't the same as rare and hitherto unknown experiences. In the former, we have a lifetime of familiarity, where in the latter, we have no basis for ready recognition or comprehension. It's not about the eye not working, it's about interpreting something unknown. Just like the source of every superstition throughout history, observation does not equal comprehension.

You are a moron for continuing to conflate everyday with rare experiences, deny all the science about the reliability of eyewitnesses, and even reversing all the evidence about extreme and emotional experiences being even less reliable than neutral ones. We all know you're scientifically and rationally illiterate, so you can quit trying so hard to convince us. You've already done a bang up job.

(May 3, 2018 11:34 PM)Syne Wrote: Arrested, yes. Convicted, no. Without corroborating evidence, any such conviction has a high rate of being overturned, and prosecutors know better than to try those cases.

Again, everyday experiences aren't the same as rare and hitherto unknown experiences. In the former, we have a lifetime of familiarity, where in the latter, we have no basis for ready recognition or comprehension. It's not about the eye not working, it's about interpreting something unknown. Just like the source of every superstition throughout history, observation does not equal comprehension.

You are a moron for continuing to conflate everyday with rare experiences, deny all the science about the reliability of eyewitnesses, and even reversing all the evidence about extreme and emotional experiences being even less reliable than neutral ones. We all know you're scientifically and rationally illiterate, so you can quit trying so hard to convince us. You've already done a bang up job.

IOW, you have nothing left but personal attacks and ad homs. That's when I know I've won the argument. Tks for that.

Quote:In the former, we have a lifetime of familiarity, where in the latter, we have no basis for ready recognition or comprehension.

A crime is not an everyday familiar event and is in fact emotional jarring and disorienting. Yet still eyewitness accounts remain reliable and evidentiary. And you can bet your ass if you see an 8 foot dogman walking in front of you, you aren't likely to mistake it for anything else. Unusual events tend to be riveting and vividly remembered. That's just how our perception works. It's called adrenalin.

(May 3, 2018 11:46 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(May 3, 2018 11:34 PM)Syne Wrote: Arrested, yes. Convicted, no. Without corroborating evidence, any such conviction has a high rate of being overturned, and prosecutors know better than to try those cases.

Again, everyday experiences aren't the same as rare and hitherto unknown experiences. In the former, we have a lifetime of familiarity, where in the latter, we have no basis for ready recognition or comprehension. It's not about the eye not working, it's about interpreting something unknown. Just like the source of every superstition throughout history, observation does not equal comprehension.

You are a moron for continuing to conflate everyday with rare experiences, deny all the science about the reliability of eyewitnesses, and even reversing all the evidence about extreme and emotional experiences being even less reliable than neutral ones. We all know you're scientifically and rationally illiterate, so you can quit trying so hard to convince us. You've already done a bang up job.

IOW, you have nothing left but personal attacks and ad homs. That's when I know I've won the argument. Tks for that.

You started the ad hominems here: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-5272-p...l#pid19876
So by your own estimation, you lost a long time ago. Thanks for admitting it.

Quote:

Quote:In the former, we have a lifetime of familiarity, where in the latter, we have no basis for ready recognition or comprehension.

A crime is not an everyday familiar event and is in fact emotional jarring and disorienting. Yet still eyewitness accounts remain reliable and evidentiary. And you can bet your ass if you see an 8 foot dogman walking in front of you, you aren't likely to mistake it for anything else. Unusual events tend to be riveting and vividly remembered. That's just how our perception works. It's called adrenalin.

Straw man. Who said crime was an everyday event? No one. Learn to read.
No wonder you can't manage to comprehend any of the scientific research on the topic of eyewitnesses. You're reading comprehension just isn't up to the task.

Quote:No wonder you can't manage to comprehend any of the scientific research on the topic of eyewitnesses. You're reading comprehension just isn't up to the task.

Just an endless spuing of ad homs at this point. Ta ta..

(May 4, 2018 12:29 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:No wonder you can't manage to comprehend any of the scientific research on the topic of eyewitnesses. You're reading comprehension just isn't up to the task.

Just an endless spuing of ad homs at this point. Ta ta..

Says the hypocrite who started the ad hominems:

(May 3, 2018 01:24 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Wrong bitch.