View Single Post
11-02-2012, 08:37 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,944
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?
A single person's memory of a single event is just that, and can be very subjective and individual. But when many people see the same thing, or one person sees the same thing many times, you've got a better chance at getting meaningful information.

NHL hockey games are not random criminal acts of the type that eyewitness research is conducted on. They are watched by thousands of people live and thousands or even millions on television. And many of these people watch many hockey games and learn to observe the patterns of the game.

I'm stating the obvious here, but my point is that this research may not be very applicable to hockey fans watching games.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote