@josh_is_exciting that was just a general statement. In this case, I'm thinking of stuff like "Well, how come you don't remember xyz; how are we supposed to believe you when you can't recall...?" The scientific (and fair) way to approach that would be to consult experts on memory formation of traumatic events, to see if the kind of reporting in question is consistent with observed and expected patterns of memory in trauma cases. In a culture that strategically discounts (and even disparages!) professional expertise, it could be quite easy to counter, overlook, or even altogether dispense with such a check. Then you have people who are not experts in the field calling into question someone's credibility on a specious claim (which might be easily dispatched with a little consultation)--and a watching audience of likewise non-experts stroking their chins thinking "Yeah, sounds about right...". That was just an example. I see this kind of thing all the time: people making claims about they way things are based on what makes sense to them, without anyone saying "Hey wait a minute, what does the scientific literature say about this? What do the experts say? Is it possible that the reality of this situation is more than meets the eye?". I'm not sure how much is simple strategy and how much comes from legitimate anti-intellectualism, but I'm sure the later helps the former. This fracas has just illuminated that for me in a peripheral way.