Aristotle revisited: The case of recovered memories

The experimental manipulations of the scientific enterprise, which has identified the myriad and intriguing ways memory can fail, has been too easily translated to mean that memory regularly does fail. This commentray attempts to reverse that perception by bringing background data to the forefront: a review of the data across all studies reveals that memory is consistently accurate and more accurate than not. In addition, the remarkable accuracy and the occasional inaccuracies of memory are unified under the perspective that memory, like other cognitive functions, is an active component in the processes of successful adaptation to the environment. The implications of this perspective are directed towards clinicians who, in addition to considering the scholarship, are confronted with the immediate reality of reports of recovered memories and the need to respond compassionately and ethically to their patients.