View Single Post
11-02-2012, 06:05 PM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,867
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Here's the biggest rub. Whenever an analytical argument is made, the unreliability of the metrics used is always used against it. And yet, when an eyewitness argument is made, the unreliability of human perception and memory is almost never acknowledged (likely because most people don't realize how unreliable they can be). That's one of the biggest problems I see in this type of discussion: "I know what I saw!" Not necessarily, in point of fact.

The flaws in both types of argument must be acknowledged. The idea that someone's memory of something in the past, or that their perception of the thing at the time, is flawless is simply false. Many memory researchers consider the concept of photographic (eidetic) memory to be a myth. What sort of chance does that give the common person?
This is why I think contemporary opinion (accounts of a player's play relatively soon after it happened, usually via newspaper articles) is so important, compared to statements based on older memories.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote