Skip to main content

CFI UK EVENT: Event Title: Searching for Satan: Miscarriages of memory, fractured families and Satanic panics





(Photo: Wikipedia/Creative Commons; design: Lauren Wade)

Centre for Inquiry UK and Anomalistic Psychology research Unit, Goldsmiths present:


Searching for Satan: Miscarriages of memory, fractured families and Satanic panics


Discover how the unreliability of memory has led to grave miscarriages of justice, including panics about Satanic abuse. Can memories really be ‘recovered’ by therapists? To what extent can we rely on the memories of witnesses in historic abuse cases? Some deeply disturbing cases will be investigated.

6th June 2015

Venue: Room LG02 in the Professor Stuart Hall Building (formerly the New Academic Building),
Goldsmiths College, University of London
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Find us: https://www.gold.ac.uk/find-us/
PLEASE NOTE VENUE IS NOT CONWAY HALL
Talk 1:

Time: 11:00-12:00

Title: What people believe about memory that ain’t necessarily so.

Speakers: Prof Chris French & Dr James Ost

Biographies:

Professor Chris French is Head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths, University of London. He frequently appears on radio and television casting a sceptical eye over paranormal and related claims. He writes for the Guardian and The Skeptic magazine. His most recent book is Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience.

Dr James Ost is a Reader in Applied Cognitive Psychology at the Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UK.  His research focuses on the inherently context-dependent nature of memory and remembering, focusing mainly on false memories for real life events (childhood memories, sexual abuse, terrorist attacks).  He has advised police forces on interview strategy, written expert reports on memory evidence, and has served as an expert witness at court. 

Summary:

Surveys show that a large proportion of the general public hold many beliefs about memory that are just plain wrong. Even more worrying, so do psychotherapists, psychologists, and professionals involved in legal services, a situation that can lead to miscarriages of justice. Chris French and James Ost summarise our current understanding of the nature of memory. (NB: This presentation includes a quiz for you to assess your own level of understanding - so bring pen and paper!)"



Talk 2:

Time: 12:15-13:15

Title: False memories, false accusations and torture: Satan’s work?

Speaker: Barbara Hewson

Biography:

Barbara Hewson is a senior barrister practising at 1 Gray’s Inn Square. Her work includes human rights, mental capacity and professional regulation. She is well-known for criticising Operation Yewtree, associated historic abuse prosecutions, and “the cult of victimhood”. She also writes for spiked-online and other journals.

Summary:

A recent case about alleged Satanic ritual abuse in the Family Division highlights the dangers of not learning lessons from history.  But it also confirms that to instil false memories of abuse can amount to torture, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is also a heinous wrong. So the stakes could not be higher for professionals working to prevent abuse, but also false allegations of abuse.  Britain’s mounting obsession with historic abuse allegations (dubbed “Paedogeddon” by critics), coupled with political demands to give victims greater rights, risk brushing common sense away to keep monsters at bay. How can the law fight back, to ensure justice can be done?”

Talk 3:

Time: 14:15-15:15

Title: When Satan Came to Town – Carol Felstead: a true story of false memories.

Speaker: Dr Kevin Felstead

Biography:

In 2001, Kevin Felstead was awarded a doctorate from Keele University where he taught courses on the history of crime, policing and punishment in England and Wales since 1800. He was subsequently employed by Manchester City Council working in the field of community safety, neighbourhood crime and justice. Kevin is currently employed as a consultant for the British False Memory Society, where he is employed as Director of Communications.

Summary:

After visiting her doctor about a headache, Carol was subjected to hypnotic therapy, sedated and brainwashed, Carol’s childhood memories were eradicated and her mind was re-ordered. Assigned a new identity, Carol fell into the iron grip of a string of psychotherapists who obsessed about ritual abuse. A myth was created which helped stoke the entire Satanic Abuse Panic in the United Kingdom.

Comments

mackyton said…
You know my friend told me about this event. I first thought who is going to have an event on finding Satan. But after researching I found that couple of NYC events are lined up too on these similar lines. I think that’s quite a popular topic now.
Anonymous said…
Dividing things into a polemic about true or false memory is not useful. there is such a thing as "source memory error" . that is, something terrible may have happened but the exact details may be confused. The brain may employ metaphors. For example it may be easier for the brain to remember that they were abused by satan than by a neighbour -

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

Suggesting a new named fallacy: the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (or David Cameron Fallacy)

Many of us are familiar with the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (' after this, therefore because of this) - Post Hoc Fallacy for short). It's the fallacy of supposing that, because B occurred after A, A must be the cause of B. For example: My car stopped working after I changed the oil, so changing the oil caused it to stop working. Or:  I wore my red jumper to the exam and I passed, so that jumper is lucky: it caused me to pass. This fallacy is so common, it gets a latin name. However, there's a related common fallacy that I think also deserves a name. I am going to call it the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (' not after of this, therefore not because of this), or, perhaps more memorably, the David Cameron Fallacy. Every now and then someone desperate to ‘prove’ that X is not causally responsible for Y – e.g poverty is not a cause of crime, will commit the following fallacy. They will argue that as X has often occurred without Y following, therefore X was not the