Hello! For anyone who wants to get anything off their chest I am gladly here to listen and help a little with my experience

elizabeth loftus conducted a study to observe the reliability of eyewitnesses during the 1970s. their baseline was to define how accurate are the recollections of eyewitnesses.

her studies do not support the use of eyewitness. loftus mentions in her work that we are not required to recall some experiences, meaning that rarely an individual eyewitness testimony is trustworthy. a good example is presented in her work, where all individuals watched a video and were than asked "about how fast were the cars going when they hit/smash? ". the testimonies changed based on the word she used to make the question (hit or smash), proving the fragility.

the old way of life was represented by superstition, an angry god, and absolute submission to authority. the thinkers of the age of reason ushered in a new way of thinking. this new way championed the accomplishments of humankind. individuals did not have to accept despair. science and reason could bring happiness and progress. kings did not rule by divine right. they had an obligation to their subjects. europeans pondered the implications for nearly a century. americans put them into practice first.

well, i can't read it so i'll ask you questions about it : )

if you were a reader and you read the introduction, would you want to read more?

does it start with a question? if so, is it something you would want to read about?

and ask any friends or family for their opinion : )