Comment by esseph
10 hours ago
> It's specific segments of people saying we can't trust eyewitness claims.
Scientists that have studied this over long periods of times and diverse population groups?
I've done this firsthand - remembered an event a particular way only to see video (in the old days, before easy video editing) and find out it... didn't quite happen as I remembered.
That's because human beings aren't video recorders. We're encoding emotions into sensor data, and get blinded by things like Weapon Focus and Selective Attention.
Ok, let me give you examples.
Much of what many learned about life came from their parents. That included lots of foundational knowledge that was either true or worked well enough.
You learned a ton in school from textbooks that you didn't personally verify.
You learned lots from media, online experts, etc. Much of which you couldn't verify.
In each case, they are making eyewitness claims that are a mix of first-hand and hearsay. Many books or journals report others' claims. So, even most education involves tons of hearsay claims.
So, how do scientists raised, educated, and informed by eyewitness claims write reports saying eyewitness testimony isn't reliable? How do scientists educated by tons of hearsay not believe eyewitness testimony is trustworthy?
Or did they personally do the scientific method on every claim, technique, machine, circuit, etc they ever considered using? And make all of it from first principles and raw materials? Did they never believe another person's claims?
Also, "scientists that have studied this over long periods of times and diverse population groups" is itself an eyewitness claim and hearsay if you want us to take your word for it. If we look up the studies, we're believing their eyewitness claims on faith while we've validated your claim that theirs exist.
It's clear most people have no idea how much they act on faith in others' word, even those scientists who claim to refute the value of it.