> Merrell Wrote:
> > Audrey Wrote:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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.
> Nevertheless they use Martin Stower, who it
> transpires is non credentialed and "purely amateur
> and has never claimed otherwise", in order to
> buttress and underpin their argument.
> Could this be considered somewhat disingenuous?
No, John, they use me as a source of arguments and they acknowledge me as the source of these arguments. They present the arguments and leave the rest to the reader. They do not call me an “expert” and there is no appeal to authority (as noted below)—whereas you’ve made it abundantly clear here that an appeal to authority is precisely what Creighton has produced and this is how you see it yourself.
> > > What credentials does Stower have making his
> > > opinion believable?
> > What credentials does Scott Creighton have which
> > make his opinion believable?
> In terms of the brush stroke issue, Scott has no
> credentials whatsoever. It is for this reason that
> he very wisely sought the advice and opinion of a
> fully credentialed and degreed expert in brush
> stroke sequencing.
> One Snape-Ellison M.A.
Fully credentialed and degreed expert in brush stroke sequencing!
Most of us have worked this stuff out before the age of five, remember?—and you’re trying to con us that it’s specialised, esoteric knowledge which requires credentials to comment on?
So, will you be showing us your published work on brush stroke sequencing in the work of Roger Hilton (say)?
Will you be showing us some of your paintings?
Past time for “the emperor has no clothes” on this one.
And, let me remind you, Scott Creighton has no credentials in any of the stuff he talks about.
> > What credentials does Graham Hancock have which
> > make his opinion believable?
> Again Graham Hancock actively and constantly seeks
> the advice of credentialed experts and
I’ve done some of that myself.
As for Graham Hancock, would you like to give an example? He’s clearly selective in which experts and specialists he believes and which not. What credentials does he have to make this choice?
If the books are just compilations of what credentialed experts and specialists say, where’s the room for Graham Hancock?
Who, let me remind you, has no credentials in any of the stuff he talks about. Pretty dumb to do this huffing and puffing about credentials on Graham Hancock’s Message Board!
> > 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.
> All well and good, the question arising are
> egyptologists the best people to comment on
> painting? (the application of paint to a surface,
> usually by brush)
> Since the dawn of Egyptology I am not aware of any
> egyptologist even recognising the potential of
> this methodology.
> Up until now it has gone un-noticed. Hidden in
> plain sight.
> As far as I am aware I am the first to both
> recognise the potential and utilise this
> As far as I am aware Scott Creighton is the first
> author to employ a/the specialist in this field.
But John, most of us have applied paint with a brush by the age of five! Remember?
Do readers need higher degrees in Fine Art to follow the argument? No? Then it can’t be that esoteric. On the contrary, it’s precisely an appeal to common experience which does not require a specialist at either end. What we have here is an argument from authority con job and nothing but.
And you’re dead wrong about being first to “recognise the potential and utilise this methodology”. Houdin commented on the brush sequence—and one or two calligraphers were discussing the material on Unexplained Mysteries in the context of their interest.
Heard of palaeography? You think you have anything on specialists in hieratic or demotic?
> This is very similar to the Schoch/Sphinx
> scenario, where it was argued that Schoch's lack
> of egyptological credentials somehow precluded him
> from commenting on the sphinx erosion patterns.
> In that egyptological erosion somehow differed
> from geological erosion.
And other geologists differed, so don’t regard this as a done deal which can make your point.
> > > 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.
> They sought his expertise in that field and
> proclaimed so.