Giza the Truth (Lawton & Ogilvie-Herald)
> Virgin Books, 2000 p.101:
> Linguistic and interpretation issues. Turning to
> the linguistic as opposed to practical issues,
> these have been thoroughly refuted by a British
> researcher, Martin Stower on his internet
> web site.
> Stower is a linguist?
This is a term often (although not wholly accurately) used to describe people who speak several languages, when it's more properly the scientific study of languages.
Martin has studied linguistics in the context of cognitive science. He would not claim, however, that this makes him a linguist. He has contributed to projects in natural language processing, but, again, would not claim that this makes him a computational linguist.
His interest in Egyptology is purely amateur, and he has never claimed otherwise.
Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald don’t actually call Martin a linguist as such. They call him a “researcher”, a catch-all often applied to those on the “alternative” side, who usually lack formal credentials in the topics they discuss.
> What credentials does Stower have making his
> opinion believable?
What credentials does Scott Creighton have which make his opinion believable?
What credentials does Graham Hancock have which make his opinion believable?
Martin's approached the Khufu forgery question much as a journalist would. He read the material, made sure he understood it, then explained it. Where possible, he's run it past qualified Egyptologists. If people are persuaded by his arguments, it’s because they follow them in detail and exercise their intelligence. No appeal to authority is made.
> So far as I know he has no training, education, or
> field experience that would qualify him on
> "Linguistic and interpretation issues".
> No training in hieroglyphs or languages.
A post in the other thread linked to a webpage stating that Martin has a professional interest in cognitive science; and, as I stated above, he's studied linguistics in that context.
Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald don't call him an “expert” as such, or ask people to accept what he says on that basis. On the contrary, they summarise the relevant arguments (pp. 100–103 in the hardback edition) and leave the reader to decide on that basis.
> Remember, we can not give credit to internet
> browsing, or stalking. Having a website does not
> make one an expert.
See my comments above.