Preconceptions of Perceptions.

[JohnB]

Ophiolite's comment in the "pointless fun" thread got me thinking.

I use that one in training sessions to get across the point that you shouldn't necessarily believe your own eyes. It is also an excellent illustration of why sceptics doubt eyewitnesses who have seen ghosts, or UFOs, or the Loch Ness monster, etc.

 

How often do we rate the reliability of a witness by what we believe?

 

Without worrying about the existance or not of things, an experiment.

 

You are now a Police Officer interviewing a witness about a robbery. The witness tells you that the offender was 190 cm tall, dark hair, pale complexion, etc., in fact the whole box and dice. You'd be thinking something like "A good observer, accurate and concise." You would have no doubt (or very little) that the person saw what they said they saw. And you would go looking for the man who fits the description. This would be a major prosecution point the witness said he saw the offender.

 

Two days later the witness comes to you and tells you of the UFO he saw last night. He gives just as concise a description of the object. Size, speed, actions and headings. Your first thought would be "If this gets out, the case goes down the drain. My witness is delusional."

 

Why?

 

Thoughts?

 

Again, this is not about the reality or otherwise of objects, but about why we think what we do. I just think it's curious.