> How did you get through two degrees without basic
> reading skills?
> > Bakunin: “I listen to them freely and with all
> the respect merited by their intelligence, their
> character, their knowledge, reserving always my
> incontestable right of criticism and censure. I
> do not content myself with consulting a single
> authority in any special branch; I consult
> several; I compare their opinions, and choose that
> which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise
> no infallible authority, even in special
> questions; . . .”.
> ...I doubt you know what you're talking about...
> ...I do not consider your opinions sound....
> ...I reject all your all-too-evident pretensions...
> ...authoritarian con job...
Uh-oh, here come the insults again. Running out of logic and evidence so soon after quoting Bakunin? Perhaps you missed Bakunin's mention of "respect".
Jon didn't simply say "as an art expert I hereby decree the cartouche is a fraud". Instead, Jon applies his insight into a detailed analysis of the technical considerations regarding brush stroke density, width, filled recesses, paint runs, etc. The "authority" he represents is not a simple "trust me" claim. Instead, he presents set of detailed observations of the physical evidence which needs to be reckoned with. Citing a scholarly argument such as Bakunin's for challenging authority does not, itself, provide a scholarly basis for rejecting specific details provided by the "authority". Simply saying you don't like his observations without specifying the nature of your objection isn't the kind of scholarly (and respectful) objection Bakunin describes. Bakunin made it clear (at least to me) that simply denying the authority isn't enough, you need to assess the claims, draw your own logical objections to, or agreement with, those claims, and determine what it is about the authoritative claims that you specifically object to so that you can determine your own preferences which you should be able to subsequently annunciate. But merely decrying a detailed observation without presenting your logic for the objection is simply ideology at work; it's not logical debate.
You might consider presenting logical details of your own rationale for rejecting the the detailed observations Jon presents instead of simply resorting to more insults that betray the confidence of your claim. What is it about the direction of the brush stroke you disagree with? What is it about the one-sided filling of recesses under the strokes, or the changes in stroke density and width that makes you disagree with Jon. What is it about Jon's "authority" that you reject.
Otherwise, your objections are as empty as Dscribr's.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 28-Jun-16 15:51 by Origyptian.