Abstract
Abstract People often use personal stories to support and defend their views. But can a personal story be evidence? A story tells us that a certain event can happen and has already happened to someone, but it may not always help us understand what caused the event or predict how likely that event is to happen again in the future. Moreover, people confabulate. That is, when they tell stories about their past, they are likely to distort reality in some way. When people who lack access to what motivated past behaviour are asked why they made a choice, they tend to offer plausible considerations in support of that choice, even if those considerations could not have played a motivating role in bringing about their behaviour. When people experience impairments in autobiographical memory, they tend to fill the gaps in their own story by reconstructing significant events to match their interests, values, and conception of themselves. This means that people often offer a curated version of the events they describe. In this paper, we argue that the pervasiveness of confabulation does not rule out that personal stories can be used as evidence but invites us to reflect carefully about what they are evidence of. And this is especially important in the context of digital storytelling, because stories shared on online platforms can exert even greater influence on what people think and do.
Highlights
Memory is a powerful source of knowledge
In the section ‘Confabulation’, we show how confabulation compromises the reliability of personal stories in clinical and non-clinical contexts
In debates that have involved citizens on social media – such as what measures are most effective in tackling the coronavirus pandemic, whether the Earth’s climate is changing due to human intervention, or whether electro-convulsive therapy is safe and effective – personal stories are often used as evidence for defending some of the debated claims
Summary
Memory is a powerful source of knowledge. When we tell stories about our past, we share significant experiences with others. In debates that have involved citizens on social media – such as what measures are most effective in tackling the coronavirus pandemic, whether the Earth’s climate is changing due to human intervention, or whether electro-convulsive therapy is safe and effective – personal stories are often used as evidence for defending some of the debated claims This invites us to consider some important features of stories. The possibilities that other factors might have led to Ian’s death are not usually part of how anti-vaccination groups report the story, such as the fact that the baby’s mother had a difficult birth, that the baby was allergic to antibiotics, and that he had contracted a virus prior to receiving his immunisation (Shelby and Ernst 2013) Omitting such details may affect how the story is received and enhance its influence as evidence against vaccine safety. Are delays in healthcare provision due to the UK being in the EU? Was baby Gromowski’s death caused by his hepatitis B immunisation? Unless answers to questions about causal relations between events can be answered, the story may fail to provide conclusive or even convincing evidence for the claim it allegedly supports
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
