Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking PseudoSkeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers
Argument
# 6:
The memory
malleability argument
to dismiss anecdotal evidence.
Stated as:
“Memory is
malleable
and unreliable.
The mind often fabricates memories and/or edits them.
Therefore, memory is not
reliable
evidence for paranormal claims.”
A similar
skeptical tactic
to try to further discredit anecdotal
evidence (covered above in Argument # 5)
is to attack the reliability of people’s memory.
Skeptics argue that since
memory is
malleable, then the memory of paranormal experiencers
is unreliable and therefore not to be trusted as valid evidence. This
is related to the concept of False
Memory
Syndrome. Skeptics
also
try to justify it by using Occam’s Razor,
claiming that inaccurate memory is a more probable and simpler
explanation than
any paranormal one.
However, two
significant problems with this argument reveal that is not only weak,
but
inapplicable as well, making it one of the least convincing of the
skeptical
arguments.
1) The
main problem with this is that although memory isn’t perfect
and doesn’t work like a tape recorder, the majority of what
sane
people
remember IS reliable and can be checked out and verified. (See Argument # 5)
This is easily demonstrable.
I could
make a long list of things I did yesterday, last week, or even last
year.
And I could also make a long
list of
events
that happened from yesterday to years ago.
The vast majority of these
things (I would bet over 95 percent
of them)
could easily be verified by other people, records/receipts, news
articles of
the events, etc.
No one of course
remembers every detail of every second of their life, but what we DO
remember
tends to be accurate and can be verified.
This simple fact is severely
damaging to the false memory dogma
of this
argument.
Of course, there are bound to
be a few details that are fuzzy that I may not remember correctly, but
these
are addressed in the second point below.
2) Where
memory tends to be unreliable the most is in the area
involving details that the brain considers too insignificant to
remember (which
is the category that most things go into such as the colors of the cars
you saw
on the way to work this morning, number of steps on a staircase, etc.). Thousands
of details we perceive everyday
which our minds consider useless and insignificant are discarded. Unfortunately
for skeptics and debunkers,
paranormal experiences don’t fit into this category because
they
tend to be
significant, shocking, and revealing. As
we all know, significant life-altering events in our lives make the
biggest
impression in our memory and tend to be remembered immediately with
clarity,
not years afterward.
Since
paranormal/psychic experiences belong in this category, this further
damages
this already weak argument even more. In
fact, people describing shocking or traumatic events from long ago tend
to say,
“It
was years ago, but I can still see it
as if it were happening right now.”
These memories are often the
same way years later as they were
the day
they occurred.
This means that the memory is
consistent and reliable.
It’s not like I
just thought of an event
from
years ago that made no impression on me back then and suddenly realize
upon
reflection that it was paranormal!
Therefore memories of
paranormal events are not likely to be
created by
memory malleability.
Such was
demonstrated in my own case when a psychic who sensed from my
“vibrations” that
there was a tragic period in my life when I was 9 years old. When
a skeptic challenged the reliability of
my memory of it, which only occurred
a year
and a half
ago, I easily met his challenge by showing him a post I wrote up about
it the
day after it occurred, which contained the SAME details that I remember
now. (it’s
ironic these days when
science and technology helps us
prove skeptics wrong!)
Therefore,
based on the two
points above, the memory malleability argument is not only too weak to
use to
dismiss significant paranormal claims but also inadequate and
inapplicable as
well.
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page