(November 15, 2015 at 8:14 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(November 14, 2015 at 8:07 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Personally, when I am investigating an event, i find that you can tell when someone is giving you a conclusion rather then their testimony. There are less details to the story, and they do not include much before and after. Testimony also includes irrelevant details. When I see this occurring, I ask questions, like what made you think that you heard a bomb? I want to know details, of what you saw or heard (or felt), not necessarily what you think it was.I hope you aren't a cop.
The problem with your approach is that details of what "you saw or heard" are, at the time of the report, memories. And they can be completely fabricated by the imagination, or twisted by whatever the person has thought about the event since they witnessed it.
People "remember" wrong colors, hair styles, height, even race. And that's just the ones who are trying to tell the truth.
Since you are talking about religion, then you also have to deal with the phenomenon of implanted memories: that we think we remember things from our childhood which were in fact just things our parents told us about ourselves. So if your parents tell you they felt Jesus in the room when you were born, you are likely to "remember" the presence of Jesus as one of your first memories.
Really, the science demonstrates that the OP just points to a bad approach to establishing the truth of ideas.
This just a guess, but in the following scenario, I'm guessing your story would change. You and I our having this discussion in person, and it gets heated. I pull out a gun and shoot you in the leg. I then flee the scene and dispose of all traces of evidence. Yourself and a number of other people present, all testify that I lost it, and assaulted you, and even identify me by name. Are you going to press charges, or contemplate if you memory may be incorrect?
