UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

ufology, can you point us to any scientific research that supports your position on how accurate human memory is? There have been any number of links posted here to studies and papers that demonstrate the fallibility of human memory, so if your thinking is right we should expect some support for your position too, shouldn't we?

Looking forward to reading about it.

The evidence for what I had said is self evident. Do you not have any accurate childhood memories yourself? Do you not remember what your childhood home was like, where it was and perhaps even the address. I'm sure many people do. Also consider retail clerks. These days a lot of it goes by scanning. But before that there was this little oriental guy at our grocery store who must have know hundreds of products off by heart. The average college student has a vocabulary of around 12,000 words, and graduating involves remembering many facts and figures and passing tests to succeed.

Additionally, raw memory power is different. Proving that a person has a hard time remembering everyone's name in a room in one round doesn't mean they don't remember visting their great grandparents as kids or a whole host of other things ... pets, toys, friends ... c'mon do you really need scientific references to prove this?

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

Ufology, did you watch this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

 

[ufology]

You keep twisting and making strawmen out of this. No one said you can't trust a memory beyond the last 5 minutes.

But, given the evidence for how eyewitnesses can't be counted on to accurately remember an event just a few hours or days old, it is reasonable to question any memory from years or decades ago. Human memory is simply too fallible to be trusted with details for such a long time. It has been proven again and again, and is the reason why eyewitness evidence is so mistrusted in courtrooms.

You keep trying to build up how reliable memory is, when it is demonstrably not so. Memory is not self-correcting. It is self-deluding, if anything. That you continue to insist this isn't so makes your arguments weak.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia Article on human memory:

"By contrast, long-term memory can store much larger quantities of information for potentially unlimited duration (sometimes a whole life span). Its capacity is immeasurably large. For example, given a random seven-digit number we may remember it for only a few seconds before forgetting, suggesting it was stored in our short-term memory. On the other hand, we can remember telephone numbers for many years through repetition; this information is said to be stored in long-term memory."

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The evidence for what I had said is self evident.

Balderdash.


Both semantically and in its substance.

Do you not have any accurate childhood memories yourself? Do you not remember what your childhood home was like, where it was and perhaps even the address. I'm sure many people do. Also consider retail clerks. These days a lot of it goes by scanning. But before that there was this little oriental guy at our grocery store who must have know hundreds of products off by heart. The average college student has a vocabulary of around 12,000 words, and graduating involves remembering many facts and figures and passing tests to succeed.

A strawman bolstered with yet another bloody anecdote topped off with a generalisation. Are you on a mission?

Additionally, raw memory power is different. Proving that a person has a hard time remembering everyone's name in a room in one round doesn't mean they don't remember visting their great grandparents as kids or a whole host of other things ... pets, toys, friends ... c'mon do you really need scientific references to prove this?

To prove what? That equivocation is a pathetic substitute for an actual argument?

No, I don't think that will be necessary.

It's self-evident.

 

[AdMan]

The evidence for what I had said is self evident. Do you not have any accurate childhood memories yourself? Do you not remember what your childhood home was like, where it was and perhaps even the address. I'm sure many people do. Also consider retail clerks. These days a lot of it goes by scanning. But before that there was this little oriental guy at our grocery store who must have know hundreds of products off by heart. The average college student has a vocabulary of around 12,000 words, and graduating involves remembering many facts and figures and passing tests to succeed.

Additionally, raw memory power is different. Proving that a person has a hard time remembering everyone's name in a room in one round doesn't mean they don't remember visting their great grandparents as kids or a whole host of other things ... pets, toys, friends ... c'mon do you really need references to prove this?

j.r.

This is BS, and I think you know it.

I'm talking about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, such as the testimony saying you've witnessed an extraordinary occurrence like a crime, or even witnessing a UFO.

Research has proven that such recollections are extremely unreliable, even to the point that they are given little credence in a court of law.

We've provided links to research supporting the fact that human memory in these situations is quite fallible. You disagree, yet you've provided nothing to support this beyond your empty claims.

If you really expect to convince anyone you'll need more than this.

 

[Jocce]

The evidence for what I had said is self evident. Do you not have any accurate childhood memories yourself?

I don't know if I have any accurate memories at all from my childhood. I do know though that I have one inaccurate. I was around 12 years old and walking to school. Parallell to my road there was a gravel road around 200 meters away and I could see an old man walking along it in the same direction I was walking. I looked away and looked back just seconds afterwards and the man was gone. There was nowhere he could have gone, no trees or anything so I had a clear view over his road for hundreds of meters. It was very strange and a bit scary cause on the far side of that road I knew we had a haunted house. I remember it very well, probably because if the haunted house thing.

I happened to pass by there last year and realized that the event couldn't have happened quite like I remembered it. First of all, the other road was not 200 meters from me, it was more like 80. Second, I could not have been twelve and walking to school cause I only went to that school until I was 8. Third, there is an old barnlike building between my road and his road that's been there since the early 1900's together with a couple of old oak trees.

Now, there are two possibilities. Either someone moved the road, put up a hundred years old house there in the last 40 years and I was a slow learner so I had stay in grade 2 for 4 years (which I didn't). Or, my memory of the event wasn't accurate.

 

[Akhenaten]

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia Article on human memory:

"By contrast, long-term memory can store much larger quantities of information for potentially unlimited duration (sometimes a whole life span). Its capacity is immeasurably large."

It's a matter of selecting the correct words to highlght, ufology. You did it wrong.

"For example, given a random seven-digit number we may remember it for only a few seconds before forgetting, suggesting it was stored in our short-term memory. On the other hand, we can remember telephone numbers for many years through repetition; this information is said to be stored in long-term memory."

The big difference with the phone number example is that the accuracy of the memory is corroborated every time the number is (correctly) dialled.

Stories like your one about the flying Volksblimp full of fireflies lack this advantage.

 

[ufology]

Our Amazing Memory

Here's another quote from an article on memory:

The efficiency of human memory recall is astounding. Most of what we remember is by direct retrieval, where items of information are linked directly a question or cue, rather than by the kind of sequential scan a computer might use (which would require a systematic search through the entire contents of memory until a match is found). Other memories are retrieved quickly and efficiently by hierarchical inference, where a specific question is linked to a class or subset of information about which certain facts are known.

http://www.human-memory.net/processes_recall.html

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia Article on human memory:

"By contrast, long-term memory can store much larger quantities of information for potentially unlimited duration (sometimes a whole life span). Its capacity is immeasurably large. For example, given a random seven-digit number we may remember it for only a few seconds before forgetting, suggesting it was stored in our short-term memory. On the other hand, we can remember telephone numbers for many years through repetition; this information is said to be stored in long-term memory."

j.r.

You haven't taken the time to look at any of the studies linked to earlier have you?

The distinction between short- and long-term memory is not what we've been discussing.

 

[ufology]

It's a matter of selecting the correct words to highlght, ufology. You did it wrong.

The big difference with the phone number example is that the accuracy of the memory is corroborated every time the number is (correctly) dialled.

Stories like your one about the flying Volksblimp full of fireflies lack this advantage.

I didn't see a, "flying Volksblimp full of fireflies", that is a flippant interpretation based on sarcasm.

I saw a sphere of light rise up from the forest, hover for a few seconds while it turned bright white, and then instantly accelerate out of sight covering over 25Km in about 1 second.

j.r.

 

[Jocce]

Here's another quote from an article on memory:

The efficiency of human memory recall is astounding. Most of what we remember is by direct retrieval, where items of information are linked directly a question or cue, rather than by the kind of sequential scan a computer might use (which would require a systematic search through the entire contents of memory until a match is found). Other memories are retrieved quickly and efficiently by hierarchical inference, where a specific question is linked to a class or subset of information about which certain facts are known.

http://www.human-memory.net/processes_recall.html

j.r.

And if you read the whole article:

It is also possible that false or wrongly interpreted memories may be created during recall, and carried forward thereafter. One can also, up to a point, choose to forget, by blocking out unwanted memories during recall (a process achieved by frontal lobe activity, which inhibits the laying down or re-consolidation of a memory.

 

[ufology]

You haven't taken the time to look at any of the studies linked to earlier have you?

The distinction between short- and long-term memory is not what we've been discussing.

What we've been discussing is the reliability of memory, and I contend that it is not such a "poor servant" as the skeptics self-servingly suggest. Rather, in healthy people it is quite amazing. Certainly there are ways to demonstrate its weaknesses, but everything has a margin of error, including scientific theories and experiments. The constant promotion of science as infallible and human experience as completely useless is a misleading tactic that serves to only to narrow the skeptics goalposts while widening the opponents and as such is nothing more than a form of pseudoskeptical propoganda that does nothing to help discern the truth.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

Fake memories can also be implanted artificially.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/dec/04/science.research1

 

[Akhenaten]

I didn't see a, "flying Volksblimp full of fireflies", that is a flippant interpretation based on sarcasm.

It's the way I remember it. Are you saying there's something wrong with my memory?

I saw a sphere of light rise up from the forest, hover for a few seconds while it turned bright white, and then instantly accelerate out of sight covering over 25Km in about 1 second.

No, that's just how you remember it. Isis knows what you actually saw.

Nobody else ever will.

 

[Akhenaten]

Here's another quote from an article on memory:

The efficiency of human memory recall is astounding. Most of what we remember is by direct retrieval, where items of information are linked directly a question or cue, rather than by the kind of sequential scan a computer might use (which would require a systematic search through the entire contents of memory until a match is found). Other memories are retrieved quickly and efficiently by hierarchical inference, where a specific question is linked to a class or subset of information about which certain facts are known.

http://www.human-memory.net/processes_recall.html

j.r.

And if you read the whole article:

It is also possible that false or wrongly interpreted memories may be created during recall, and carried forward thereafter. One can also, up to a point, choose to forget, by blocking out unwanted memories during recall (a process achieved by frontal lobe activity, which inhibits the laying down or re-consolidation of a memory.

How embarrassment!

 

[John Albert]

Ufology, did you watch this?

Care to comment on it?

 

[Akhenaten]

What we've been discussing is the reliability of memory, and I contend that it is not such a "poor servant" as the skeptics self-servingly suggest.

You contend lots of stuff, including things that are at odds with your own references. So what?

Rather, in healthy people it is quite amazing.

Quite amazing it may be. Reliable enough to stand alone as evidence of past events it is not.

Certainly there are ways to demonstrate its weaknesses, but everything has a margin of error, including scientific theories and experiments.

Certainly there are ways to demonstrate its weaknesses, but everything has a top and a bottom, including Volkswagens.

Slightly different words - exactly the same total lack of meaning.

The constant promotion of science as infallible and human experience as completely useless is a misleading tactic strawman that I will repeat at every opportunity in the hope that some poor sap will fall for it. serves to only to narrow the skeptics goalposts while widening the opponents and as such is nothing more than a form of pseudoskeptical propoganda that does nothing to help discern the truth.

FTFY

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

What we've been discussing is the reliability of memory, and I contend that it is not such a "poor servant" as the skeptics self-servingly suggest. Rather, in healthy people it is quite amazing. Certainly there are ways to demonstrate its weaknesses, but everything has a margin of error, including scientific theories and experiments. The constant promotion of science as infallible and human experience as completely useless is a misleading tactic that serves to only to narrow the skeptics goalposts while widening the opponents and as such is nothing more than a form of pseudoskeptical propoganda that does nothing to help discern the truth.

j.r.

When you say that we are promoting that science is infallible and that human experience as completely useless. Your right about one thing your memory isn't that good.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Ufology you compare the memory of an event which lasted minutes to the memory of the address of your parents?
My parents address is the same since 1955 (except postal code changed).
Really big deal to remember correct.

 

[ufology]

Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance.

Care to comment on it?

I've watched the video and It's entertaining ... it's also a complete misrepresentation to say that eye-witnesses in general jump to the conclusion of extraterrestrial spaceships every time they see an unidentified light.

His portrayal of the term "unidentified" in the context of UFO is also misrepresented. To quote an excerpt from USAF AFR 200-2, February 05, 1958 defining the term UFO:

2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:

a. Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars).

b. Unknown Aircraft:
(1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation.
(2) Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.
(3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles.

c. Unidentified Flying Objects - Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to definitions in a. and b. above.
​

His concept of memory is misrepresented with respect to ufology in that he uses the example of passed down memories as retold by multiple people to reach a conclusion that eye-witness testimony is "the worst kind of evidence", when in fact, most UFO reports and studies on file are from first-person sources and passed to others in hard copy or digital form which preserves the original information.

His presentation that humans are "poor data taking devices" and "that's why we have machines", is an example of the technocratic propoganda that we regularly see in skeptics. Machines fail all the time and lose data or garble it up. Machines are also fallible.

I loved his comment that "Photoshop probably has a UFO button".

I agree that the evidence for establishing the reality of UFOs does not presently meet the standards of evidence required by scientists in a lab e.g. objective physical evidence such as an "alien ash try". However labs aren't where all science is done, and the pursuit of knowledge can also take place outside of a lab and outside of the scientific method through the use of observation, philosophy, experience, and critical thinking.

I agree that some amateur astronomers have seen UFOs and that because they are better at identifiying anomalous objects than the average person, it is more likely that the incidence of them incorrectly reporting UFOs is lower than in untrained people. However not all sightings are at night and there isn't much for an astronomer to see in the daytime except for the Sun and Moon and the odd planet or passing space station. So they aren't usually looking at the sky as intently during the day, whereas people like pilots are, so this might also be a contributing factor to why fewer amateur astronomers see UFOs than the general population.


j.r.