So you're argument is that I am making a strawman agrument, as long as we remove the things you actually said? Seriously, debate like an adult. Stop trying to portray accurate rendtitions of your posts as strawman arguments. It's beyond ludicrous.
No, you are attacking a strawman whether it's removed or not. I told you to remove it so that you would focus on the main part of the point. Isolating the first sentence of my post and ignoring the rest is not an accurate rendition of my post. You are attempting to dismiss the entire point with a semantics argument through your interpretation of "sensorial". That's pointless and you know it. Stay focused. The point is photographic evidence is more reliable than one's word. I want photographic evidence of the Bedford claim. Why have you been unable to present any in over a hundred years?
Okay, first of all I did not "isolate the first sentence of your post and ignore the rest". I quoted your post in its entirety, and responded to the part which was relevant to what we were originally discussing. Your post was in no way misrepresented, as it was quoted in full above my response! Ignoring parts of a post is not a strawman argument. Stop using words you do not understand.
So, in short: It's not a strawman as long as you quote the whole post? Wrong. On the contrary, the fact that you quoted the whole thing but only addressed the first sentence makes it even worse. If you only meant to reply to the first sentence, that's what you should have done.
Speaking of which, do not accuse me of introducing the "semantics argument". You were the one who originally put forward the idea that as cameras are sensors, photographic evidence is "sensorial", not me.
What I originally put forth was the same point as I'm making now. It is, and always was, as I said above:
photographic evidence is more reliable than one's word. I want photographic evidence of the Bedford claim. Let's look back:
you have zero photographic evidence of your own claims.
We have lots of direct sensorial evidence though.
Cameras are sensors too, and they have the benefit of not being susceptible to delusion and hallucination. I'd love some photographic evidence of the Bedford experiment or equivalent. What's the holdup?
As you can see, the first thing I commented on was the lack of photographic evidence. You said that you have sensorial evidence, so I then pointed out that cameras are more reliable sensors, and repeated my request for photographic evidence.
Finally, the reason I am ignoring the second aspect of your original post is because its value is predicated on the validity of photographic evidence, which of course is what I am contesting when I advocate the primacy of direct sensorial evidence.
No, the validity of camera versus eyes cannot be inferred by your semantics babbling. You have not put forth any arguments at all
for "the primacy of direct sensorial evidence". All you have done is dodge the issue by arguing the semantics of what qualifies as sensorial.
So please, let's see an argument: tell us why you think your real-time interpretations and your memory is more reliable than a photographic recording. I have already presented my argument, and I will repeat it here:
Cameras don't conform to your delusions, so another set of eyes examining the photo is more reliable than listening to word-of-mouth testimony. What is your counter to this?
The point is photographic evidence is more reliable than one's word.
No it's not. Photographs are as easy to manipulate as words.
Consider the many years it takes to learn the English language to a point where you could lie convincingly compared to the one Intro to Photoshop class you need to take to manipulate a photo -- one might even say that it's easier to lie with a photograph.
Please pay attention. I never said anyone was lying.