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.
Uh, if anything that would be worse, as someone could reasonably conclude that was all you had said. What's more, it still wouldn't be a strawman,
as at no point was your position misrepresented.
Your request for photographs was not part of your argument that photographs are sensorial. Responding to the latter and not the former in no way constitutes a misrepresentation of the latter. It was not a strawman, and you clearly do not understand what a strawman is. Please, go and look it up, because you look really foolish.
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.
This is not true. I mean, you quoted the post above, so I don't understand how you think you're going to get away with this. Let's look at that post again:
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?
That's the first thing you commented on, and your use of "too" can only relate to my point about direct sensorial evidence. Moreover, I'm not accusing you of changing your arguments, I'm just saying that you were the one who brought this particular argument up. You then accused me of attempting to "dismiss" your point with a semantic argument, but you were the one who started that argument in the first place.
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.
I don't think you're really following things here zarg. First of all, I never claimed to have put forward arguments for the primacy of direct sensorial evidence in this thread. I said I advocated it, and I have. However, elsewhere I have put forward these arguments, and indeed I have directed you to them in the past. If you have not bothered to read them, then that remains your problem now just as it did then.
Finally, I would once again like to point out that you were the one who started an argument about whether or not photographs constitute sensorial evidence. Not me.
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?
Please read my
Discourse on the Zetetic Method. You know, actually read it, instead of huffing and puffing everytime I tell you to read it.
Also, that was not a strawman arguement.
Yes it was. He simplified my position to make it easier to refute. So did Tom. Please pay attention.
No I did not. First of all, your post contained two distinct things: first, an argument that photographs constituted sensorial evidence, and second, a request to present valid photographic evidence. They are two separate things, and obviously if I contest the argument and believe in the primacy of direct sensorial evidence, it makes no sense to try and satisfy the request. I quoted your post in full, responded to the first part and ignored the second. I in no way simplified your position, and I certainly did not misrepresent it.
This is a forum for big boys, who only use words they understand. Swinging the word 'fallacy' around like it starts with 'ph' only works if you know what you're talking about. You clearly don't, so please, stop doing it.