That is extremely weak to nonexistent counter-evidence that seems to focus on supporting Loftus, who has put a lot of effort into the defense of her public persona. I don’t disagree that it is possible to manufacture memories but the evidence isn’t there to support your conclusion or the converse.
Recovered-memory therapy (the topic of the Wikipedia article) is very clearly quack science and has been discredited.
Some of the techniques used in the therapy include giving patients sedative-hypnotic drugs to put the patient in a waking dream-like state while the therapist asks leading questions to get them to "remember" an event. The same drugs they used are known to be associated with false memories, like when someone falsely recalls something from a vivid dream as having actually happened.
It has fallen out of favor based on a lack of evidential support, for sure. It has not really been dismantled publicly scientifically, but mostly quietly, perhaps in order to protect its practitioners, perhaps because the research cannot currently be ethically conducted.
I am not advocating for it, just stating the near total lack of substantive scientific evidence presented either in support or opposed.
on a discussion board? no, there is no onus of proof, because nothing is riding on it, just as you don't need proof to reject the ideas.
demanding citations is the favorite trick of people who want to waste your time precisely because they disagree with you and no matter what you come up with, they'll never give in. therefore, one should never give in to it.
rather, doing your own research and contributing it to the discussion is the lifeblood of online communities.
> demanding citations is the favorite trick of people who want to waste your time precisely because they disagree with you and no matter what you come up with, they'll never give in. therefore, one should never give in to it.
That's incredibly dumb.
First, unless you are making a baseless claim, you have supposedly already done the research, so presenting evidence of your claim ought to not be any more of a burden on your time than making the claim was.
Second, you don't need the other party to accept the evidence you present, particularly if they are disagreeing in bad faith. No one can use the "asking for evidence" trick if you have presented the evidence.
Third, which is more efficient: having one person who made the claim present the evidence to back it up, or to make every single person who comes across the claim look up the evidence independently? Making baseless claims wastes everyone's time (and coincidentally is the actual favorite trick of those who want to waste your time because they disagree with you).
Fourth, if you give up on doing things you ought to because you're worried there will continue to be assholes on the internet afterwards, you'll never do much of anything at all.
Fifth, which type of comment do you prefer to read: the one that makes a claim without evidence which maybe you'll double check at some point if you have time, or the one that quickly gives you the evidence right there? Write the type of comments you like to read.
In science. On a casual forum you have no obligation and I’d rather someone leave a short comment so I at least know, if I’m interested I’ll go look and verify myself.
