> > 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
> entific 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.
In other words he has contributed to projects in computer programming, which none would call a natural language. He is an IT computer geek with no degree and no training or experience in " Linguistic and interpretation issues".
> > 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?
This isn't about Hancock or Scott. This is about Stower bashing observations made by an art expert on the ridiculous premise that an art expert isn't qualified to examine art. This is about Stower and you being unwilling to examine the cartouche using the tools given by Jon.
> 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.
Is there a reason why you think Scotts readers will not do the same?
> 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.
His profession is computer programming, this is not related to "cognitive science" therefore what he has read on philosophy would not be a "professional interest", it would be a personal interest. And judging by his insane posts on this board, he has not benefited by what he has read on "cognitive science".
> 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
> > make one an expert.
> See my comments above.
Which are an attempt to paint a higher education where there is none. I know of no IT geek who relates his profession to linguists or cognitive science in any way. This is Martin's and your attempt to twist the ordinary profession of programming which requires a knowledge of computer codes and not linguistics, as is being demonstrated by thousands of teenagers hacking and writing programs. Martin is nothing more than a common IT tech.
Using terms such as "cognitive science" does not expand the computer geek's knowledge into a broader field. It only shows you are not familiar with programming.