Ah, memory; it’s often infallible. (Yes, you read me correctly)

Copyright 2021, InterAmerica, Inc. The errant consensus that memory is unreliable, applies to eyewitness testimony usually and is used by lawyers in defense of the clients in criminal and civil cases. But is memory always fallible? Nope. In that New Yorker issue that housed the UFO article mentioned here and elsewhere the past week or so is a piece by magazine regular Adam Gopnik: Peripheral Proust [Page 63 ff.] The analysis of Marcel Proust’s various literary personalities is buffered by Proust’s masterpiece, A la Recherche du Temps Perdu, translated nowadays as “In Search of Lost Time” an egregiously mistranslation, replacing Proust’s eminent original biographer C. K. Scott Moncrieff’s Remembrance of Thing’s Past. (In college I assiduously defended the Remembrance … translation, now sort of approved by Gopnik’s observations in his article.) My point here is to defend UFO witness testimony from the quidnuncs who keep stating that UFO witness accounts are refurbished by memory, after the fact, sometimes long after the fact, and thus are not reliable. That canard is incorrect and grievously false. Memory is usually as wholesome as a page from the Britannica Encyclopedia. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eyewitness-memory-is-a-lot-more-reliable-than-you-think/ Of course, time will smudge recalled events, but Proust’s admired masterwork indicates that…

Read More…
Ah, memory; it’s often infallible. (Yes, you read me correctly)

Updated: May 9, 2021 — 10:27 pm