"Memories aren't real."
...unless you have evidence of them...
This is where skeptics hang their hat. ONE inconsistency, even if EXPECTED, means that NO ONE's recollections are reliable.
While this may well be the standard of proof in a court of law, or in the heads of skeptics, but real world application of the principle would be hazardous.
If you see a car get stranded on a set of train tracks, then you see the car get obliterated by the train. Your brain records the event "car on tracks + train = BAD".
The next day, YOUR car is stranded on the tracks, and the train is coming. Your memory of the 'green' car on the tracks is flawed. It was really blue. But the memory tells you, "Get off the tracks, because bad stuff will happen if you don't."
Skepticism says that because of everyone's flawed memory, that no memory can be trusted, ESPECIALLY if it has already been proven to be faulty.
So, disregard the flawed memory, it wasn't real.
In the real world, people don't have this luxury. In the real world people have eyes, ears, and the rest of their senses to record the world in which they live. They use these memories to navigate through this world. While mistakes DO happen, they aren't happening EVERY TIME.
People can and DO remember things, if not 100% accurately. They use these memories successfully, daily.
NO ONE in their right mind demands scientific proof of something before they accept its existence, to do so, would put your very life in danger.
So, in the imaginary world of skepticism, you may well hold that memories, especially flawed ones, are useless. Just stay inside, and away from fire, sharp objects, or anything else that represents sincere danger.
Then again, I'll wager that skeptics DON'T apply this same standard of proof to their daily lives...because it is dangerous and would leave them incapable of successfully navigating this world.
Ignore your senses and your memory of this world at your peril.
