(May 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And if you did remember differently as I had asked in the original question?   Which are you going to go with then (your memory or science)?

Well, I would be extremely skeptical (to put it nicely) of any evidence presented to me by a prosecutor. They don't seem to know the meaning of selection bias, when it comes to evaluating scientific data and applying scientific methodology to the "evidence" system of courtrooms. Sometimes, perhaps even usually, it's not even deliberate, just the natural consequence of their perspective... as the saying goes:"when the only tool you've got is a hammer, pretty soon everything starts to look like a nail". I would demand a fairly exhaustive version of peer review of the methods employed, independently tested, and personally reviewed to my own satisfaction. There may simply be a better explanation for what the data seem to show, and my skepticism could keep me from pleading guilty to something I do not recall simply because I believed the person wearing the "rose-colored glasses" with respect to my guilt.

But yes, if everything was solidly proved by unassailable means, then I would go with science over my own memory. Humans are fallible. I am no different. And there are many ways that our own minds can play tricks on us. But by doing everything in our power to eliminate bias, especially by skeptical review by independent sources that are not sympathetic to us or our preformed mindset, we can have a much higher degree of confidence in the accuracy of the information.

I would, as I said, acknowledge that I have no memory of the crime, plead No Contest (since I cannot answer the evidence for the charges but cannot actually profess my own guilt from my own memory), and hope that the Court would be fair.

(May 16, 2016 at 9:18 pm)Polaris Wrote: I was not raised as a Christian nor did I attend Church, but I always had some inclination to the spiritual. I believe spirituality is hard-wired in our being; some people are more open to exploring their spirituality, but we all have the urge to explore our beliefs.

When I was in college, examining who I really was for the first time, I looked towards Islam because I was studying it and became intrigued by it's more strict lifestyle because I had very rarely encountered Christians who seemed as intense. I can say this about Moslems....they are really friendly and open to you when you are pursuing Islam; brick wall develops when you decide it's not for you.

But at the same time, I found a group of Christian young adults that I would pray with on Thursday nights (I was still not willing to go to Church with them because I would party the night before and sleep in until the afternoon), but one November night during prayer, I encountered the Holy Spirit and I have been a Christian ever since. It just happened like that, which surprised me since I had been very much against the belief in the Holy Spirit before that (I may have even argued with a pastor's son in high school about Him).

I guess to sum it up is I was looking to find out who I was and that's how I became a Christian. Many of my friends likewise were in the same boat...we did not grow up as Christians, but found a community that was worth being a part of...

With respect, I'm not sure you can count your Muslim experiences as definitive of the whole. They may have become "closed" to you because they felt you were playing them. You wouldn't be the first to do so... not even counting the FBI attempts to slip informants in among them. I have several Muslim friends, and have a cordial relationship with them (and have had enjoyable theology discussions with them, on occasion) even though they all know I am an atheist. Of course, my friends do not speak for Muslims either. 

Your little story there is... nice? Um, congratulations?

(May 16, 2016 at 9:25 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(May 16, 2016 at 9:18 pm)Polaris Wrote: I was not raised as a Christian nor did I attend Church, but I always had some inclination to the spiritual. I believe spirituality is hard-wired in our being; some people are more open to exploring their spirituality, but we all have the urge to explore our beliefs.

When I was in college, examining who I really was for the first time, I looked towards Islam because I was studying it and became intrigued by it's more strict lifestyle because I had very rarely encountered Christians who seemed as intense. I can say this about Moslems....they are really friendly and open to you when you are pursuing Islam; brick wall develops when you decide it's not for you.

But at the same time, I found a group of Christian young adults that I would pray with on Thursday nights (I was still not willing to go to Church with them because I would party the night before and sleep in until the afternoon), but one November night during prayer, I encountered the Holy Spirit and I have been a Christian ever since. It just happened like that, which surprised me since I had been very much against the belief in the Holy Spirit before that (I may have even argued with a pastor's son in high school about Him).

I guess to sum it up is I was looking to find out who I was and that's how I became a Christian. Many of my friends likewise were in the same boat...we did not grow up as Christians, but found a community that was worth being a part of...

With respect, I'm not sure you can count your Muslim experiences as definitive of the whole. They may have become "closed" to you because they felt you were playing them. You wouldn't be the first to do so... not even counting the FBI attempts to slip informants in among them. I have several Muslim friends, and have a cordial relationship with them (and have had enjoyable theology discussions with them, on occasion) even though they all know I am an atheist. Of course, my friends do not speak for Muslims either. 

Your little story there is... nice? Um, congratulations?

His little story is full of confirmation bias, and very selective in its thinking.

Science or my memory?

Science, not even close. I'm all too aware of how fallible my memory is.

(May 16, 2016 at 9:19 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

---

(May 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And if you did remember differently as I had asked in the original question?   Which are you going to go with then (your memory or science)?

Well, I would be extremely skeptical (to put it nicely) of any evidence presented to me by a prosecutor. They don't seem to know the meaning of selection bias, when it comes to evaluating scientific data and applying scientific methodology to the "evidence" system of courtrooms. Sometimes, perhaps even usually, it's not even deliberate, just the natural consequence of their perspective... as the saying goes:"when the only tool you've got is a hammer, pretty soon everything starts to look like a nail". I would demand a fairly exhaustive version of peer review of the methods employed, independently tested, and personally reviewed to my own satisfaction. There may simply be a better explanation for what the data seem to show, and my skepticism could keep me from pleading guilty to something I do not recall simply because I believed the person wearing the "rose-colored glasses" with respect to my guilt.

But yes, if everything was solidly proved by unassailable means, then I would go with science over my own memory. Humans are fallible. I am no different. And there are many ways that our own minds can play tricks on us. But by doing everything in our power to eliminate bias, especially by skeptical review by independent sources that are not sympathetic to us or our preformed mindset, we can have a much higher degree of confidence in the accuracy of the information.

I would, as I said, acknowledge that I have no memory of the crime, plead No Contest (since I cannot answer the evidence for the charges but cannot actually profess my own guilt from my own memory), and hope that the Court would be fair.

---

After you answered, stating with no memory of the event, I did begin thinking that "confess" was a poor choice in my wording on my part. I don't think that I could confess to what I do not know. I would also agree, in that instance, I would plead no contest (if it was allowed).

I do find it interesting, that many would abandon what they know, because of what a scientist says. I can understand with the way that memory works, if details or what I thought I saw, could be better explained by someone with more knowledge or additional evidence. However if what they are describing doesn't resemble at all, what I know to be true, then I am going to heavily question their assumptions. I think that I would need good direct evidence or some reason to question what I remember to make a leap of that extent.

RE: Why do Christians become Christians?

Which came first, the gullibility or the adamant faith?

Or the parental and societal indoctrination and reinforcement...

(May 18, 2016 at 11:56 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: After you answered, stating with no memory of the event, I did begin thinking that "confess" was a poor choice in my wording on my part.  I don't think that I could confess to what I do not know.  I would also agree, in that instance, I would plead no contest (if it was allowed).

I do find it interesting, that many would abandon what they know, because of what a scientist says.    I can understand with the way that memory works, if details or what I thought I saw, could be better explained by someone with more knowledge  or additional evidence.   However if what they are describing doesn't resemble at all, what I know to be true, then I am going to heavily question their assumptions.  I think that I would need good direct evidence or some reason to question what I remember to make a leap of that extent.

Agreed! You would have to consider the many things we do know (amnesia, blackouts, etc.) about the fallibility of human brains, and not assume that what we think we know is the whole truth. You would also be right to be highly skeptical of conclusions that differ from your own recollection. But when it comes down to it, memories can be, and typically are, not accurate, for a gigantic number of reasons.

And it's not "because some scientist says so", it's about what methodology (including assumptions, testing by multiple means, etc.) that scientist used to come to the conclusions he or she did. It's why I'd demand independent evaluation of the results, in order to eliminate potential bias, and why I would want to skeptically review those methods and tests myself.

We see many examples of scientists who are employed by the state subconsciously tainting evidence, in criminal cases, such as the FBI and state investigatory labs, resulting in wrongful convictions. A classic example is where DNA testing at the police labs were contaminated and improperly analyzed, resulting in a rape conviction of innocent people until outside analysis revealed the methodological errors being committed by the lab.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...bt/480747/

Anyone who's ever sat around a table and recounted stories of their youth with family has been in the situation you find interesting.   

You might remember, for example, standing over a dead hog between your uncle, cousin, and grandfather.   You remember their clothes - the time of day, the color and size of the hog.  Your grandmother smiles and brings you a picture of your uncle, cousin, and grandfather all standing over a dead hog just as you described....except you aren't in the picture.  

Are you going to stick with your memory, or "abandon what you know"? What if you didn't have the picture...but there was no disagreement between the involved parties, that you weren't there? Gonna stick with your memory, or "abandon what you know"? It;s a pretty common situation to find oneself in, as a human being, confronting the fallibility of both your memory and your cognitive processes built atop that memory. Most of us, I hope, just shrug and say "hmn, must've seen that picture, must've heard the story, must be remembering wrong".

It takes a special kind of stubborn to insist upon the accuracy of ones "knowledge" despite evidence to the contrary.

(May 18, 2016 at 12:10 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(May 18, 2016 at 11:56 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: After you answered, stating with no memory of the event, I did begin thinking that "confess" was a poor choice in my wording on my part.  I don't think that I could confess to what I do not know.  I would also agree, in that instance, I would plead no contest (if it was allowed).

I do find it interesting, that many would abandon what they know, because of what a scientist says.    I can understand with the way that memory works, if details or what I thought I saw, could be better explained by someone with more knowledge  or additional evidence.   However if what they are describing doesn't resemble at all, what I know to be true, then I am going to heavily question their assumptions.  I think that I would need good direct evidence or some reason to question what I remember to make a leap of that extent.

Agreed! You would have to consider the many things we do know (amnesia, blackouts, etc.) about the fallibility of human brains, and not assume that what we think we know is the whole truth. You would also be right to be highly skeptical of conclusions that differ from your own recollection. But when it comes down to it, memories can be, and typically are, not accurate, for a gigantic number of reasons.

If I have no recollection, such as the case of amnesia or blackouts, then I would also have no knowledge to argue with. I also wouldn't have any knowledge to the contrary. A few weeks ago, I had a pretty bad flu on the weekend. As a result my memory of the previous week, is fairly sketchy and I don't recall many details. However, If accused, I would still be pretty confident, that I didn't kill anyone during that time.

Quote:And it's not "because some scientist says so", it's about what methodology (including assumptions, testing by multiple means, etc.) that scientist used to come to the conclusions he or she did. It's why I'd demand independent evaluation of the results, in order to eliminate potential bias, and why I would want to skeptically review those methods and tests myself.

Agreed, the scientist can come to the wrong conclusion. Should I take these facts, and then conclude that scientific evidence is fallible, and not very good evidence (or not evidence at all)?

Quote:We see many examples of scientists who are employed by the state subconsciously tainting evidence, in criminal cases, such as the FBI and state investigatory labs, resulting in wrongful convictions. A classic example is where DNA testing at the police labs were contaminated and improperly analyzed, resulting in a rape conviction of innocent people until outside analysis revealed the methodological errors being committed by the lab.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...bt/480747/

I can agree with that, and not only that, but scientist not employed by the state, can have motivation to push and agenda..... which is why I look at the arguments being made, and don't paint them all with broad strokes.