Replies

There is a dissenting opinion about Techdudes conclusion.

Joseph Cannon // August 5, 2008 at 6:12 am

My credentials are that I’ve been using Photoshop as an illustrator and graphic artist since it first came out. That was quite few years ago. If TD contacts me, I’ll explain how to contact the guy who ran the ad agency that introduced me to that program, and he’ll also describe some of the things I’ve been paid to do over the years.

That said, I’m always running into people who know things that I don’t. As Churchill once put it, I am always willing to learn, even if I don’t like being taught.

People like Joe are ridiculous. I’ve devoted many hours each day for months to making sure Obama does not get the nomination. Nobody paid me for that. In fact, I’ve lost a lot of money doing this work.

My record is out in the open.

And yet he thinks that I consider Obama my “Messiah,” simply becaue i think he’s wrong on ONE issue. The PUMA folks are becoming almost as paranoid and fanatical as the Kossacks.

I’ll continue to attack Obama on every other front. But this birth certificate stuff? If this thing pans out — great. But I don’t think it will.

Even a technical expert who can pass a voir dire examination in court cannot simply testify “I’m an expert. Take my word for it.” Usually, a jury will want to hear more than that. The expert must explain HOW he came to his conclusions if he wants to persuade his listeners.

Experts have been known to make mistakes, especially when the “want to believe” factor impairs judgment. Elsewhere, I’ve mentioned the case of Bruce Maccabee, a physicist and photo expert employed by the Navy and the NSA. His credentials are superb. But the fact remains that he “verified” UFO photos that were later proven to be fakes. I could also mention famed historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, who authenticated the “Hitler Diaries,” later proven to be a hoax.

You could probably come up with several similar examples.

These controversies are never a matter of battling resumes. They are matters of battling arguments. It comes down to replicable experiment.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. So is an ad hominem argument.

Look, I’m going to give it one more try. But if I don’t see letters — if all I find are blobs — then I’ll publish blobs on my site.

On the other hand, I’ll always be open to ANYONE who can tell me how to transform those blobs into legibility. That’s fair, isn’t it?

I think Techdude’s behavior has been odd. He writes as though anyone can follow his instructions, yet his instructions are maddeningly unclear. He doesn’t even tell us what program he used! And he simply refuses to show (WITHOUT OVERLAYS) the results, so we can test the legibility for ourselves.

That’s not science.