What can you believe in this age of photoshopping?

Once, a picture was ample evidence in a court of law. Perhaps it still is. But I’ve seen and worked with enough photographers and digital editors to know not to believe all that I see in print.

Yet, we have a tendency to still trust photos. Is it because our sense of sight is stronger than the sense of perception? What about the other senses?

If we smell a rose but we don’t see a rose, is it there?

Yes, for a blind person. No, for a sighted. Or it is an invisible rose?

If we can see a rose but not smell it, is it there?

Yes, for a sighted person. No, for the blind. Unless the blind person touches it.

If a sighted person can touch a rose but not see it, he is presumed mad.

He is especially mad if he can touch it and smell it but not see it.

However, if the blind person can touch and smell it, but he can’t see it, he is not mad.

I understand some of the above are oversimplifications which can be disputed by elementary logic.

Perhaps the senses are to work in tandem. However, if a person lacks a certain sense, like sight, the other senses get heightened so the “net sense quotient” remains constant. So the degree of sense perception is a zero sum total.

At this point, I’m starting not to make coherent sense.

However, you see the words but you don’t smell them.

You see, and perhaps perceive.

So, can you believe what you see?

Next time you see a picture, question it with all your senses and then make your judgement.