Is seeing believing?

Is seeing believing? This question is a tough one to answer, however it depends on the individual. Seeing is a way of humans to interpret their surroundings making it one of the most important senses. Though sight is one of the most important sense, whatever we see is not always true, however in some circumstances, people refer to sight as a way of believing, when one says, "That's a lie, show me!" This statement explains how an individual does not believe what another individual has said, and asks to see it so he can guarantee it is in fact true. On the other hand, our eyes deceive us as well. If you have ever seen magic in real life, or an optical illusion, this is a way of our eyes trying to make out what has happened, and the result is an illusion. Many magicians depend on the audiences sight to deceive them, in order to make the magic trick work, however, behind every magic trick there is a secret, but at the time, our eyes see this trick, try to make sense of it and we see it as a trick, where as it is our eyes deceiving us. Recently, i came to know about the McGurk effect, in which, a man, produces the sound "Buh". Our eyes see his mouth movement and tell us that this man is infact saying "Buh". Then, the man changed his facial expression while saying the word, our eyes interpreted the mans face and it seemed like the man was saying "Vuh", but he was still saying "Buh". This occurred because our eyes saw the change in facial expression and thought it was a different word. This shows us that sight can be a way of believing, however, it may not be the best way.

Language Reflection

Language is a very sensitive topic because many people have their own opinions and this leads to a huge argument. So... what is language? Oxford defines language as "the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way." However, Collins dictionary defines language as "a system for the expression of thoughts, feelings, etc, by the use of spoken sounds or conventional symbols." Now, even though these are well known dictionaries, they both have different definitions on language. Whilst oxford defines language as a method of human communication, Collins does not limit it to humans. Many people believe that language is a human thing, while others think its not. The argument is that language involves communication, so if it is a human thing, what are animals doing, are they not communicating?      
Language is also said to be either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured way. With this definition, they are telling us that sign language is not an actual method of communication, because it says that language has to be written or spoken. Texting.... it would seem that texting would be a language, however it's not the conventional way of writing, therefore it's not a language, or a way of communicating. Many people believe that texting is a more evolved way of conventional writing, and it is. Majority of teenagers will text rather than write in a conventional way. In the words of John Mcwhorter, Teenagers use the phrase LOL when they start a sentence, rather than for it's actual meaning. For example:

John: Dude, I just failed my maths test.
Mark: LOL, I failed mine as well.

Now, in the situation portrayed above, two teenagers are talking about the test they just failed. One of the teens responded with the phrase LOL, but failing a test is not a funny thing, that's what John Mcwhorter was trying to say, teens have evolved texting, just like how texting evolved from conventional writing. To add to the point, many tribes and villages do not speak or write in the what we believe is language. Some tribes use a form of clicking, or whistling, this does not fall under the definitions defined above, this is their way of communicating which is a language to them. The point being made is that I believe language is a form of communicating in any form, sign language, speaking or writing.