I’ve been reading a history book, this one on a subject with so little documentation it needs to rely on eyewitnesses remembering what happened 10, 30, 50 years before. Which, honest to God, why would you even bother?
Science insists over and over and over, eyewitness testimony isn’t reliable – it’s influenced by stress, it conflates similar memories into one, it’s full of holes, it’s subject to our human love of narrative. Even lawyers who have to rely on eyewitness testimony don’t like it. It’s a problem of epistemology, no worse kind: everything we know or think we know is based on memory of what we saw, heard, read, thought, felt. And if memory is no good, then everything we know could be wrong.
What then? I have all these old memories – what do I do with them? how do I trust them? Check them out, right? Find other people who were there and together create some sort of reality, that if not true, is then at least agreed-upon. And how does that work out? For your edification and delight, I have done an experiment.
I asked my two brothers and one sister (we span a range of 10 years) to remember our childhood (maybe 50 years ago) and suggest an event we could each describe. We couldn’t decide: either the event was too personal for publication or at least one of us had no memory whatever of it. So we lowered the bar and decided to describe the garage.
Picture, not a suburban garage but a farm outbuilding. It looked nothing like the picture here – that’s there just for atmosphere – but it had the same air of remaining upright only out of habit. I won’t trouble you with our four descriptions of the garage; instead I’ll tell you what, if you read only these descriptions, you’d know about the garage. Continue reading →