I’ve been reading an article called “The George Santos Syndrome – Why people believe their own lies”. Suppose someone makes up a piece of fiction about some part of their life. Apparently, we use the same neural circuitry to imagine something as to remember it. If we reinforce the fabricated fiction we imagined with enough detail to make it sound plausible, it will eventually be remembered as truth if we keep repeating the lie and let enough time pass.
What happens when that imagination takes a scientific turn? In trying to formulate a credible hypothesis that explains some mystery, we naturally imagine as much detail as possible and keep adding what we assume to be facts, as well as reasonable ideas, as the weeks and months and years pass. Somewhere down the path – maybe sooner, perhaps later – we might conclude that our hypothesis seems to equate with truth. Then it could well be embedded in memory as such.
Science is certainly not the same thing as lying. But there are similarities between the two processes (which may be why scientific fraud does occur sometimes). We need a way to determine whether the hypothesis developed over time is actually factual or simply a self-deception that grows stronger and stronger as years (and decades) roll by. That method is, of course, to conduct experiments. But are experiments the final answer?
According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity – Albert Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer." (Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510)
Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". So the experimental results (which are potentially interpreted in different ways) are valid. But they’re only valid in one frame of reference – from the human perspective of the scientists, who say length contraction occurs. Looked at from the equally valid universal frame of reference, there is no length contraction.
Some people will say the universal frame is irrelevant because we’re human and the human perspective is the only thing that matters. Some will reject the whole discussion because they disapprove of the example using Special Relativity. But the point is that experimentation doesn’t offer a final answer. There is no final answer and we just have to do the best we can to solve the mysteries of the universe. We grope our way through all the theories and experiments, and hopefully make a little progress in the search for truth. To put things another way – quantum mechanics’ Uncertainty Principle has expanded into an Uncertainty Principle affecting all of science. The indeterminacy doesn’t rule just the subatomic realm in the early 21st century. It also rules the macroscopic Space Telescopes, CERN and the Large Hadron Collider, and every detector or laboratory.
I agree with the mentioned premise. Yes, a fiction might (not necessarily will) become a false memory if we repeat it too many times. And its mechanism is most probably not limited to merely some engrams being strengthened over time. There may be much more complicated scenarios at play, with various levels of micro and macro mechanisms working hand in hand. An example of a macro mechanism is the person's psychological need to believe his own fiction, in order to alleviate some suffering.
Anyways, I don't think that happens much in the realm of science. Hypothesis testing is in no way similar to the false-memory premise you mentioned first. It is the opposite: in science, people* rigorously try to self-criticize their own results; others are more than happy to criticize your results for you! So in the end, there is not so much to worry about self-deception.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Cognitive Science
- Mind