> You miss the point.
> The question is, what are these “an expert
> says” statements worth?
What are any "expert" statements worth, How do you quantify an "expert" statement?
A statement by someone who has been recognised by someone else as an expert.
I'm happy to accept that you are an "expert" glyph reader. You have more expertise than myself.
It's for that very reason I never comment on glyph translation . I sometimes question it but never attempt to make a contribution for the simple reason that I can't. I have little or no interest.
> In the book before this one, Creighton gives a
> long list of people who are supposed to have
> helped him with (or endorsed) his reading of a
> single sentence in Vyse’s manuscript journal.
> The list includes two unnamed “handwriting
> Some will be asking the first cogent question
> suggested: “If he had ‘handwriting experts’
> on board, why did he need the other people?”
Because he was seeking expert advice from as many sources as possible. I seek expert advise on an almost daily basis.
> Some will be thinking: “If we don’t even know
> the names of these ‘experts’, how can we
> verify their bona fides? How do we know they
> exist at all?”
I think you may be taking a confrontational approach. I see it as Scott airing an opinion, a hypothesis if you like.
In order to formulate his hypothesis he sought expert advice from those he considered more experienced than himself and then duly admitted and acknowledged it.
People are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. There is no defined right or wrong.
Half the population of the UK want to leave the EU, half want to remain.. Who's right, who's wrong or are they both right.. or wrong??
There are many reasons why individuals prefer not to have their personal identity in the public domain.
Not everyone is an attention seeker. Personal choice. Some are professionally and ethically obliged to remain anonymous for example teachers and members of the armed forces. Which must be respected.
> Some will be thinking that if these “experts”
> were unwilling to attach their names and
> professional reputations to what Creighton wrote,
> their “endorsement” isn’t worth much.
Again you are assuming that it is to add value as opposed to an acknowledgement or thanks to those that gave him their advice. Scott personally thanked and acknowledged me which I think was very gracious of him . He could have claimed everything as his own work. He could have stolen my idea. It's not possible to copyright an idea.
> As for me, I don’t need a graphologist,
> palaeographer or anyone else to tell me that
> Creighton and his army of helpers (“handwriting
> experts” included) failed to spot something
> which is actually quite hard to miss and makes
> nonsense of what he says.
Well that may well be the case, if you were to make the world aware of it, it can them be openly addressed.
Just make sure that you do everything possible to protect your idea. Which isn't easy and dependent on your motive.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26-Jun-16 22:36 by Jon Ellison.