nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 672:
Line 672: + + +
→Atheist Science: More on eyewitnesses
With respect to eyewitness accounts, here is a brief news item on BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177082.stm]. If you want to know more google "unreliable eyewitness accounts". It is not exactly new scientific news that memories can be deceptive, planted, or imagined. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 16 December 2007 (EST)
With respect to eyewitness accounts, here is a brief news item on BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177082.stm]. If you want to know more google "unreliable eyewitness accounts". It is not exactly new scientific news that memories can be deceptive, planted, or imagined. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 16 December 2007 (EST)
:It appears that you don't understand falsifiability. The article is not ''about'' falsifiability, except to the extent that studying the past is not falsifiable. In other words, it's the opposite of your claim that "scientific findings are falsifiable". True scientific claims are, but claims about the past are not, and that was the point.
: Yes, memories can be wrong, but notice also in that article that the detectives want to get to the witnesses before the media. Why? Because the witnesses are going to give them important information. Also note that it talks about convictions based on eyewitnesses. Why? Because they are generally recognised as being reliable enough to convict on. I'd suggest that the BBC article and the concerns raised in it are highlighting extreme cases and the exceptions to the rule rather than giving a true picture of the reliability of witnesses.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:46, 17 December 2007 (EST)
===Legitimate views===
===Legitimate views===