Social Skeptics regularly celebrate 1980’s psychology studies which they inexpertly believe afford them the luxury of dismissing eyewitness testimony as an unreliable form of evidence. Through the equivocation of regarding all observations as equal under the moniker of ‘eyewitness testimony’ SSkeptics can manipulate the process of science observation to their liking. But not all types of eyewitness testimony are created equal; nor are they regarded as such in the cited studies. There exists a difference between circumstantial and non-critical descriptive observations, and those observations of immediate schematic essence. Through a one-liner laden misunderstanding of the oft touted Loftus study, bad science and amateur law, SSkeptics actively seek to block entire domains of observational data from being afforded entry into the body of science.
The dismissal of data a priori for any reason of conjecture is pseudoscience. Moreover, not all types of eyewitness testimony are easily dismissible, despite the facade of authority spun through context-less snippets phrase-lifted from cool sounding psychology studies. The dismissal of Essential Eyewitness Testimony through psychological conjecture constitutes scientific fraud in the manipulation of observations which otherwise could establish analytical bases or necessity under the scientific method.
There are several types of evidence regarded as material to an issue of fact, varying in reliability depending on the source, medium, mode and form. The Laws of Evidence govern the use of testimony, which is typically delivered in the form of direct evidence exhibits (e.g., biological, DNA, fingerprint, or other physical media), documentary material (e.g., account activity, phone calls, travel, physical media), or other demonstrative evidence, which is material to an issue of fact. An additional rule of evidence pertains generally to Scots law, the rule of corroboration used in criminal law, which requires that two or more pieces of evidence, stand as first basis to establish an essential fact. Contrary to what amateurs contend, Scots law thresholds do not constitute ‘proof’ of an issue of fact; however such an attainment stands as senior evidence, until stronger evidence supplants the Scots’ basis.
One of the material evidences regarded as valid under Scots law, is Eyewitness Testimony. In general, assembled from the Federal Rules of Evidence (Federal Rules of Evidence, 2014; Federal Evidence Review, Arlington, VA; VII. Rules Regarding Opinions and Expert Testimony), there exist six types of Eyewitness Testimony (listed below in order of increasing material relevance regarding a specific issue of fact), which may or may not qualify as material to a case of dispute:
The Six Types of Eyewitness Testimony (Federal Rules of Evidence, 2014)
- Essential Schemata
(The woman in the photo to the right is witnessing Essential Schemata. She may forget how much money she had in her wallet at the time, or she may forget what she had for lunch that day or what objects were in the backseat of the car. She will not forget however, that there was a car collision, nor that the car was on fire and passengers were in the car; no matter how much time elapses, nor how many people tell her otherwise. As well, her recall of anything relevant inside the schema of the whole event, will be crystal clear)
Social Skeptics, equivocate between types 3. Circumstantial and 4. Descriptive eyewitness testimony, which can be unreliable in certain circumstances, and apply this doubt to matters of 6. Essential Schema (see Yuille Study¹ below) testimony. This is an invalid application of psychology and legal principle.
Recent Psychology Study Shows Essential Eyewitness Testimony as Being Highly Reliable
One recent psychology study in the Journal of Applied Psychology demonstrated that immediate witnesses of a real life incident maintain remarkably accurate memories of a stressful first hand event.¹ Eyewitness recall of essential elements of data which form a schema of memory, the essence of context and fact inside a recall structure, concerning what occurred in a stressful event, whether individual or in a group, was shown by the study to be extraordinarily accurate. In the study itself, police interviewed witnesses, all of whom were re-interviewed five months later concerning the same incident and same recall features. The group recall was found to be schematically accurate, even after a long period of time had elapsed, and despite the introduction of two misleading questions inserted by the research team in the follow up questioning.¹
Matters of eyewitness testimony establishing essential schema are typically very reliable. Opinions may differ as to the eye color of the assailant or even at times his identity; but the fact that a man came in and robbed a store, is typically indisputable.
In fact, a recent study by John T. Wixted (University of California, San Diego) and Gary L. Wells (Iowa State University), leading researchers in the field of eyewitness memory, cited that dismissal of eyewitness testimony has been a grave mistake in trend inside judicial practices. Ironically, the report was endorsed by none other than Elizabeth Loftus herself:
“The purpose of our article is to explain why a blanket disregard for eyewitness confidence is not only at odds with what has been learned in recent years but can also contribute to both the wrongful conviction of innocent suspects and the unwarranted removal from suspicion of a guilty suspect,” the researchers write.
The report is accompanied by commentaries from several notable experts, including Senior Circuit Judge Andre M. Davis of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and renowned memory researcher Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine. The report and commentaries are published together in Psychological Science in the Public Interest (PSPI), a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.” †
By regarding, through a priori conjecture and misapplied psychology, the whole incident of a store robbery in the above example, to constitute fiction through unreliable testimony, SSkeptics commit the pseudo-scientific fraud of observational data dismissal. This is a destructive trend, which even former supporters have begun to rethink in our most recent science on the issue.
Essential Schema – an organized structure of thought and perception that interleaves information frameworks by the relationships among key data. A mental framework of epistemological or preconceived ideas, representing some aspect of the world, concept of learning, system or event. It can be utilized as a system of organizing, perceiving and retaining new information. Schemata influence attention and the efficacy of absorption/retention of new knowledge. People are more likely to notice and retain data which fit into their schema. Essential Schemata have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information and the passage of time.
A Misapplied Study
Much ado is made of a series of studies from 1978 through 1989 in which Elizabeth Loftus cited the unreliability of eyewitness memories in situations where time has elapsed or bias inducing information has been introduced to the witness in the meantime. In the study which stemmed from a 1978 previous basis, a danger of what is called a Misinformation Effect on the part of eyewitnesses was delineated.² Participants in the original study were shown a series of slides, only one of which featured a car stopping in front of a yield sign (see right).² ³ After viewing the slides, participants were then given to read an outside opinion description of what they saw in one of the slides. Some of the participants were given descriptions that contained misinformation about the one slide with the car and yield sign, which stated that the car stopped instead at a stop sign. Now remember that this type of testimony is not based on memory of 6. Essential Schemata. It is based upon 3. Circumstantial and 4. Descriptive memory. As well, it positions the memory, not only outside a framework of a retention schema, but inside a reality of being disassociated trivia. These are the pertinent factors regarding this memory effect cited in the study, not the fact that the Essential Schemata was remembered incorrectly. “Following the slides and the reading of the description, participants were tested on what they saw. The results revealed that participants who were exposed to such misinformation were more likely to report seeing a stop sign than participants who were not misinformed.“³
Essential Schema Filtering Error
/philosophy : pseudoscience : biases : data filtering/ : when one uses pop psychology studies such as the 1980’s Loftus Study to dismiss memories and observations which they do not like. By citing that memories and eyewitness testimony are unreliable forms of evidence, pretend skeptics present an illusion of confidence on dismissing disliked eyewitness essential schema data, when neither the Federal Rules of Evidence, science nor even the cited studies make such a claim which allows the dismissal of eyewitness testimony at all.
The problem with this study is that it is measuring the accuracy of the long term, bias influenced mind on trivial matters, with no supportive memory schema, relating to
evidence bases. These are memory bases which can easily be altered by the passage of time or the influence of outside contrasting testimony which can impart a memory bias. The study shows this, but more importantly, it also shows that matters of memory in terms of 6. Essential Schemata, are very accurate.³
The witnesses, 100% recalled that a car was stopped at a sign. This is Essential Schemata, and it was demonstrated to be 100% accurate.
In other words, the witnesses may have doubt introduced in their mind as to whether a car in one slide in many, was stopped at a yield sign or a stop sign, but they did not have any doubt about the essential schema of a car stopped at a sign. A Social Skeptic would contend here that there was no such thing as a car stopped at a sign, or a collision and a car fire (in the further above example). It is a contrivance and manipulation to apply these study principles in this fashion.
Social Skeptics employ this twist of equivocation, a misapplication of this study and others like it, to principal memories of Essential Schema. Structures which retain Essential Schemata which otherwise could act as an evidential basis supporting an ethical employment of the scientific method. In this fashion, they obfuscate targeted sets of research and analysis from becoming the observational base for necessity made available to science.
This activity is fraud, and pseudoscience.
¹Yuille, J.C., & Cutshall, J.L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 291-301.
²Elizabeth F. Loftus, Hunter G. Hoffman, University of Washington; “Misinformation and Memory: The Creation of New Memories;” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1989, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp. 100- 104.
³Lee, Kerry (2004). “Age, Neuropsychological, and Social Cognitive Measures as Predictors of Individual Differences in Susceptibility to the Misinformation Effect”. Applied Cognitive Psychology 18 (8): 997–1019. Quote and diagram 3 via Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_effect#cite_note-Lee-5 ; captured 29 April 2014).
† “Eyewitness confidence can predict accuracy of identifications, researchers find”; Science Magazine: Science Policy & Ethics; April 11, 2017; https://scienmag.com/eyewitness-confidence-can-predict-accuracy-of-identifications-researchers-find/
Social Skeptics do not meet the standards of credibility incumbent in pronouncing the judgements they pretend to be qualified to make.
The qualifications which merit categorization of an opinion as that constituting expert opinion are clearly delineated by professionals who deal in matters of material fact, in the Federal Rules of Evidence.¹ Social Skeptics position themselves towards the media as the go-to resource for expert opinion on a panoply of topics on behalf of which they seek to block access to science. Nothing could be further from the reality of the nature of material evidence and issues of fact. The opinions of skeptics in general, not to mention Social Skeptics in particular, do not qualify as expert opinion under Federal Rule VII. 702. And in the event that they do qualify, under the strictures of Federal Rule VII. 703, general prejudicial opinions of skeptics constitute the least reliable testimony, meriting a clear ranking of last behind the four recognized types of testimony; which are by rank of strength, Eyewitness, Expert, Defendant and Character testimony.
A skeptic’s expert opinion is immaterial to the issue of fact in a disputed case, if any one or more of the following apply:
a. There exists direct evidence as to the issue of fact, or
b. There exist one or more Eyewitnesses to the issue of fact, or
c. The skeptic is not employed in the particular field in question, or
d. The skeptic offers only “critical thinking skills” or “the scientific method” as their sole skill basis regarding the issue of fact, or
e. The skeptic cites hearsay or anecdote as their only knowledge regarding the issue of fact, consisting of
i. contending that their opinion is held by one or more other experts in the field, or
ii. citing that an opinion is based upon previous anecdotal or hearsay similar cases, which could serve to shed prejudicial light on the issue of fact.
f. The skeptic cannot be reasonably certified by counsel in his role on behalf of the court, to serve a Duty of Candor.
From the Federal Rules of Evidence (2014):
ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY, Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.¹
Skeptics and SSkeptics:
- possess neither scientific, technical nor specialized knowledge – other than, at times, a self qualified general familiarity with the scientific method,
- possess no knowledge which will aid a trier of fact (the layperson audience), other than hearsay anecdotes concerning hearsay similar cases
- possess no material or skill which will aid in determining a fact of issue.
- possess insufficient knowledge or data regarding the fact of issue.
- may self qualify as possessing a reliable principle with respect to the scientific method; however
- typically fail as a qualified expert with respect to a history of professional application of the scientific method, and
- critical thinking skills, and rational thinking do not count as expert skills, experience or knowledge.
- has no track record of reliably applying the scientific method to the facts of the case category or case itself, to assist in determination of a fact of issue.
Therefore, skeptics do not in general qualify as ‘experts’ under the rules of evidence. If however, they do qualify under Rule 702, then Rule 703 applies to the utility of such expert opinion:
ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY, Rule 703. Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony
An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.¹
In other words, if we do not have an Eyewitness or direct evidence to a fact of issue, then a true skeptic who works by application of similar material facts or the scientific method, in their profession in the field in question, can be relied upon for expert testimony, provided that it is not overly prejudicial beyond its probative value.
If however, a skeptic tenders an opinion, such opinion only counts as evidence of issue of fact if they are indeed “in the particular field” in question. If a skeptic tenders expert opinion, which relies on prior prejudices or anecdotes from a standpoint of hearsay, this evidence is typically immaterial regarding an issue of fact. The only instance in which prejudiced testimony based on inadmissible hearsay and anecdote is regarded as material to the issue of fact, is when it constitutes the best testimony available (probative) and would therefore merit inclusion regardless of its prejudicial effect. Even in this circumstance, there exists a burden on an eyewitness or expert called the Duty of Candor. This not only requires that a counsel calling on an expert be transparent in relating his expertise with regard to a topic at hand, but also requires that counsel demand from an expert that they dispense with credenda which might be seen as prejudicing their testimony. No person in this world carries a larger agenda than a SSkeptic. Such a credenda places a counsel at risk of misleading the court – “either through direct representations or through silence.” Well maybe a Jehovah’s Witnesses at your door carries more of an agenda, but SSkepticism comes in a close second, risking placing the SSkeptic witness into a box of non-credibility and bias based on past politics and advocacy.
Sorry SSkeptics, you are only impressing yourselves and the misinformed with the sciencey-sounding media rhetoric.
¹Federal Rules of Evidence, 2014; Federal Evidence Review, Arlington, VA; VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony, Rules 702 – 703, (http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence).
Claims and Observations are not the same thing. When one develops a patent or a scientific report, the discipline between what constitutes an observation and what is declared to be a claim are manifest. But fake researchers and false SSkeptics over-use the term ‘claim’ for a reason. One which circumvents science and ensures that data is dismissed in the collection stage, through protocol sleight-of-hand.
“I refuse to hear your claims as this has all been disproved already.” The term claim, is misappropriated by SSkeptics through invalid expansion of its logical and context footprint beyond what rationality would bear in the mind of the educated listener. SSkeptics feel they are tendered license to circumvent the diligence and standards of science, since after all their goals are one in the same with science and all of their practices and rationale are sciencey. Right? …Wrong. Observation versus Claim Blurring stands as one of the quintessential examples as to why it is science which much tender dispositions on challenging data, and not the Cabal of Social Skepticism. They have demonstrated throughout history that they cannot be trusted with this process.
Observation vs Claim Blurring
: the false practice of calling an observation of data, a ‘claim’ on the observers’ part. This in an effort to subjugate such observations into the category of constituting scientific claims which therefore must be evaluated by science at face value before mature in the scientific method. Subsequently such data can be dismissed in the data collection stage, without fact or rationale, simply by equivocation with the protocol involved. In fact an observation is simply that, a piece of evidence or a fact, and its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘claim’ is a practice of deception and pseudoscience.
One of the most commonly practiced sleight-of-hand techniques employed by SSkeptics, is the practice of hi-jacking Carl Sagan quotes, and enforcing compliant arguments by twisting them around in misapplied contexts and at inappropriate stages of the Scientific Method. In doing so, they tender the appearance that science supports their beliefs 100%. In fact, to a scientist, such equivocation is never employed inside true lab disciplines or in the development of a patent. Were we to apply Social Skeptic ‘science’ to the lab or patenting process, very few cutting edge technologies would have ever been patented or discovered. In fact, one of the most oft touted quotes by SSkeptics, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” is more accurately a threat to common SSkeptic propaganda, than it is a logically effective counter against challenging observations which SSkeptics do not find compatible with Nihilist religious tenets. SSkeptics are quick to whip out the ‘Extraordinary Claims’ quote taught them in the early days of Junior SSkeptic catechism. To a SSkeptic, this quip stands like a Bible Verse or Van Helsing Crucifix to be employed against the evil they have been taught to hate. But most often, this quote of wisdom is abused by SSkeptics, who do not understand what Carl Sagan was attempting to communicate across a series of books from The Cosmic Connection through to The Dragons of Eden. SSkeptics lazily rest on the assured platform that sounding ‘sciencey,’ through utterance of this famous quote, will somehow tender them gravitas equal to that of a scientist. However, to a person who truly understands and works with the scientific method, one who daily prosecutes contentions which lever on their understanding of the differential between an observation and a claim, this statement does not sound as clever as SSkeptics regard it to be.
Laboratory and Patent Science
Patents, and for that matter experimental studies, are filed with several basic elements, the principal two of which are considered by the patent examiner or superintendent, Disclosures and Claims. Disclosures are evidences, precedents, background, data and observations which the patent applicant desires for the patent examiner to understand prior to adjudicating the status of their proposed patent claims set. A disclosure is simply the delivery of a fact or observation. It is NOT a claim. In fact, should a researcher desire simply to disclose research, background, precedent and observations – they typically do so in the form of a Provisional Patent Application, which is not submitted in an effort to be reviewed for acceptance, rather simply a registry of data. If a researcher intermixes the two, his or her patent or report will be rejected. A claim on the other hand is an extrapolation, contrivance or conjecture bearing an element of risk in its offing. It is something which has not been contended before, which must be supported by a sufficiently justifying set of corroborating information.
A facet of data, noted by a qualified eyewitness observer or reporting system/measurement mechanism.
Three Distinguishing Features of a Claim
a. Leverages a non-observed extrapolation from one or more observations and their relationship(s).
b. Avers an objective contention which has not been cited before in a methodical context of analytical support.
c. Bears an element of acceptance risk.
Observation: I distilled the liquid for 3 hours, observing mass loss of 44.3%, yet the chemical concentrations by weight at the end of distillation remained the same for both the ethanol and water in the mixture.
Claim: Water and ethanol in solution execute dynamic evaporation phase states which can be modified through the application of direct electric current, and can achieve the same results which would appear azeotropic in nature, however are not concentrated at the 95.63% ethanol and 4.37% water (by weight) mixture required for azeotropic distillation.
Observation: I saw a 2 foot tall, odd looking man in a green suit and with a green derby run across my lawn.
Claim: Leprechauns comprise an entire civilization living under the ground, hidden from us all.
Claims are CLEARLY delineated in a patent application and in most of disciplined science – and are not simply observations. Everything aside from a claim is an observation, fact or an enabling disclosure. In other words, a patent examiner or lab superintendent is determining the validity of the claims made in the patent filing and not deciding whether or not to approve disclosures. In true science, claims are not the same thing as observations.
SSkeptics Conduct Knowledge Filtering through Equivocation with Observations and Claims
SSkpetics eschew disciplines such as those that are applied in the patent prosecution process, as these disciplines hold THEM accountable. Blurring the difference between what constitutes a claim and what constitutes an observation is a common tactic of deceit on their part. In this way SSkeptics can categorize even reported observations as requiring extraordinary evidence (which they know cannot possibly be provided on demand). This is a method of Knowledge Filtering and is Deskeption.
Observations are NOT Claims
SSkeptics fail to distinguish when their grand dismissive conclusions are themselves, extraordinary claims – which require extraordinary evidence
Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves ‘skeptics,’ often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.” – Marcello Truzzi (Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP (Claims of the Paranormal))
Perhaps Carl Sagan was less of a SSketpic, than control freaks think him to have been. Maybe he was leaving a hint which has completely escaped SSkeptics all these years.