(17-08-2017, 05:32 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sure others think discussing the ideas of Nick Pelling is a waste of time. I don't see much difference really, since nobody has much to show at this point.
Good luck finding people to discuss your own ideas.
I think one good thing about our forum is that it eases the task of finding people to discuss ideas. Quick exchange of opinions and provision of information by people proficient in one or another field is what slowly but steadily moves the research forward. This is not the way of dropping yet another Voynich theory on the heads of public again and again, but rather a "micro-result"-oriented approach. As Engels suggests, once upon a time quantity should turn into quality.
(17-08-2017, 05:58 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (17-08-2017, 05:32 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sure others think discussing the ideas of Nick Pelling is a waste of time. I don't see much difference really, since nobody has much to show at this point.
Good luck finding people to discuss your own ideas.
I think that was Koen's point. From the point of view of
others like
- those who think THEY have solved it; or
- those who think they see something that others don't understand or which means the others are on the wrong track; or
- those who truly believe the VMS is a hoax; or
- those who think it can't be considered an academic field of study, even if they don't think it's a hoax, because there's not enough evidence yet; or
- those who claim to have solved it but whose theories have been disproven or discounted and yet they still cling to their assertions
probably think discussing
anyone's ideas on the VMS is a waste of time.
Exactly, Anton, that's where the forum excels, and if I want to discuss ideas I know exactly where to go. Also, where not to go.
I think there's been a very theory-driven era in Voynich research, and the forum is slowly starting to break that down into the discussion of individual arguments, ideas, proposals... independent of who brings them forward.
Edit: JKP, that was indeed my point - the irony
(17-08-2017, 03:42 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Discussing the ideas of others has largely proved to be a waste of my time, but feel free to spend your time how you like. :-)
Did you really think that a discussion is only useful if in the end everybody agrees to your point of view?
The study of the Voynich manuscript is an entertainment, therefore by definition, a waste of time. The prize we all win is first our own satisfaction.
In addition, it is not for me to discuss theories, but rather to take note of the results of research conducted in varied and diverse directions. The more varied they are, the more they will delineate promising paths.
(17-08-2017, 07:03 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think there's been a very theory-driven era in Voynich research, and the forum is slowly starting to break that down into the discussion of individual arguments, ideas, proposals... independent of who brings them forward.
I can't really confirm that.
Both things have co-existed for the last 10-15 years, and I can't remember a time when there were more theories about the origin and the possible authorship of the MS than right now.
Only in the earlier years of the original mailing list, people were more careful about stating opinions, and were generally more interested in text analysis than in formulating grand theories about this origin.
The "tone" of the research is bound to change over time.
The more researchers who have contributed in the past, the more difficult it becomes to find new or original lines of inquiry. The early researchers had an open field—anything they said about it was new.
We have to work harder and with more imagination to add anything of significance to what already exists.
Frankly, I think that if more people took Rudy's attitude, we'd all be better off.
Please don't name other forum members when discussing attitudes. Stick to generic examples.
(17-08-2017, 10:36 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The "tone" of the research is bound to change over time.
The more researchers who have contributed in the past, the more difficult it becomes to find new or original lines of inquiry. The early researchers had an open field—anything they said about it was new.
We have to work harder and with more imagination to add anything of significance to what already exists.
My experience has, sadly, been the opposite. I've never found it hard to think of new ideas to research—ideas that others have barely touched on. I scour the mailing list for discussions of the things I'm thinking about and see only one or two mentions of them, sometimes 25 years ago.
Moreover, there are topics which might have been mentioned by Currier or Tiltman but seem never to have been taken forward.
There is a vast amount to do, if you're willing to get up close to the text, that is.