> Scott did not say “a homeless bloke”. Nor
> did he say “a bloke who likes fixing old
> cars”. He said “the independent researcher
> and art expert, John Snape”. Why do you think
> he chose the one and not the others?
Because he was being honest.
> What’s made credentials an issue in this case
> is, precisely, Scotts use of the phrase “art
> expert”. Why not just leave it at
> “independent researcher”?
Because Jon is specifically trained in art. Ergo art expert. You are free to attempt different degrees of expertise if you prefer, but Scott is under no obligation to comply with someone else's definition of "expert" and as far as I know, there is no standard definition of that term. Are you an "expert linguist" or an "expert in heiroglyphics"?
> So rarely do I find a point of agreement with you
> that it’s worth making special note of it here.
> You, unlike some, are displaying the right
> attitude: judge the arguments on their merits and
> not on the credentials of the source. Not sure
> how far I follow this through, as at some point I
> will rely on credentialed sources for basic
> principles—but, only if they make sense to me
> and I’m persuaded that they know what they’re
> talking about.
Funny, I recall you repeatedly decrying my emphasis on the importance of physical evidence being able to stand on its own merit. You got pretty twisted when I refused to trust Vyse's personal narrative and, instead, claimed that without independent, corroborative physical evidence Vyse's narrative can't stand as proven fact.
I generally never put much credence in credentials/experience per se these days (as I've said before, practice makes permanent, not perfect). However, I might put a bit more credibility in a source that has a proven track record of being correct in its claims. It depends on how fundamental/pivotal the claim is.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?