The Voynich Ninja

The last sentence in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from JKP is one thing among several that made me finally write the present post, about Voynich theories, how to prove or disprove them, and the question: whom are we trying to convince.

There are different types of Voynich theories. For the sake of this argument I classify them into three groups.

1. Unspecific / non-controversial
This is what I'd consider the 'easiest' group. It includes proposals like: "it could be the diary of a travelling monk", the "notebook of a student" and in fact many of the suggestions that are proposed and discussed in fora like this.
Most of the time, it is hard to say anything against them, and it is often a matter of taste how convincing the arguments for or against it are. They are rarely the subject of heated debate. One could often say: "not sure but could be".

2. Translations
These form a very specific group. There are far more proposed translations coming up than is visible to the various fora. The thread to which I linked above is just one of five or six that I have been confronted with in the last half year.
The "good" part of proposed translations is that they are susceptible to quantitative arguments.
The people proposing translations (or similar types of solutions) come in all possible forms. Some are reasonable. Many are adamant. Some are not reasonable (spamming, annoying the staff of Yale, suspecting conspiracies, etc.).

3. Controversial provenance
This vague group includes theories that usually do not include a way to interpret the text, but they are not conforming to all or part of the evidence related to the history of the MS.
This includes (among others) the several different versions of "Kelly did it", the Meso-American theory defended by several partly independent people, and the modern fake theory, which recently showed up again in Koen's blog.
Again, the people proposing these theories come in all possible forms.


The question I really wanted to address in this post is: how much effort and energy should one put in trying to show that any theory is wrong?
Is it worth the effort?

The sentiment of JKP in the post I linked is a very understandable one: people may be misled in believing things that are, in reality wrong. This especially seems a problem if they are in no good position to judge it for themselves.

Usually, the proponents of new theories are asking for feedback. Not rarely, they are expecting acceptance.
Going into this discussion is always reasonable.
It is depending on how this discussion evolves, that one should wonder whether it is useful / worthwhile to continue it.

There are indeed people who refuse to accept any argument against what they are proposing. Without giving names, we have seen that here in the forum too. Outside the forum, this is also happening, and not infrequently.

If the proponent of a theory cannot be convinced of being wrong, is it still worth to argue, in order to convince the "rest of the world"?

As for me, personally, I am confronted with so many different cases, that I don't even have a chance to do it.

I will read all proposed solutions. After all, who knows...
But apart from that I simply have to prioritise what to do with my limited "Voynich time".

Other opinions on this topic are very welcome.

Hi ReneZ,

yes, I think it is worth it, at least up to a point. I admire JKP's calm persistence in doing this on this forum, as well as yours here and elsewhere over the years.

Once the counter-arguments have been made though, it can be discouraging to see the proponent of a theory persist, especially when things take a more personal or ugly tone.
It is very unfortunate that you and your site are the subject of such bashing, when voynich.nu is such a valuable resource for many newcomers to the Voynich world (and to regulars too!). It seems you have become a catalyst for a lot of people's bitterness and jealousy, and that is completely deplorable.

I think that some of those who belong to your 3rd category (and some of category 2) are convinced that Beinecke, (or even you) are somehow hiding something and that there is some sort of illuminati conspiracy going on to suppress the "truth" about the manuscript, and in those cases, no amount of rational argument can convince them that they are wrong. In those cases I agree that it is pointless to present arguments.

Also, some people may be reluctant to let go of a theory, especially if they are trying to sell a book or draw viewers to a monetized video, or hope to get paid/famous from interviews about their theory. The Voynich never made anyone rich (Wilfrid V. and HP Kraus found this out the hard way), but that's never stopped people from trying!
As Pliny once said about iron: "there is nothing more stubborn in existence — except indeed the greed for gold, which is the most stubborn of all things".

I dont think there is any use to start an argument with the the nut cases, e.g. when someone gives a Latin text which is not in the least like Latin, either Classical or Medieval, it is a waste of valuable time and resources as I have said in another case a few days ago.

It is no secret that I think some more valid theories are wrong, e.g. the theory that the ms. is a ciphre, but I dont feel qualified to give an opinion which means I keep my trap shut

I think any correct solution will be obvious in itself.

And if someone finds the solution, the satisfaction of cracking the case should be sufficient, even if there is some more worldly remuneration, which is not unlikely

No Voynich theorist has ever accepted that evidence X or logical disproof Y has disproved his or her pet theory. Trying to do so is therefore a waste of time.

The only sensible research avenue is to try to uncover links between pages or sections of the Voynich and other manuscripts, to work out how the two are connected. Everything else is just vanity and noise.

I only really think about the text, so the following should be taken with that in mind:

For theories in 1) I just ignore them. They add nothing. The person may come up with something more interesting later, but this isn't it.

For theories in 3), if the proposed provenance is after 1500 I ignore them and discount the researcher entirely. They will never come up with anything useful to me. That's my line in the sand: the manuscript comes from before 1500, no argument. (Naturally, those who propose a supernatural or extraterrestrial origin also get this treatment, but they're thankfully less common.)

For theories in 2) it is harder to judge. If they refuse to supply a translation and method then they should be ignored until they do. Once these are supplied it is usually obvious that one is drastically wrong. (I subscribe to the belief that the text is meaningful, so I really should also ignore those who propose otherwise. Sadly this is hard to do as they often gain a lot of unwarranted interest.)

As you can most likely tell, I only really listen to the research of a handful of people who a) think like me, or b) are smart enough to make interesting and challenging theories which disagree with me (hi, Nick!).

(12-08-2017, 10:11 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As you can most likely tell, I only really listen to the research of a handful of people who a) think like me, or b) are smart enough to make interesting and challenging theories which disagree with me (hi, Nick!).

If it's only a list of one I'm on, that's actually quite a miserable state of affairs. :-(

Trying to make people understand why their theory doesn't work is a matter of personal preference. If you are very patient and like to teach and explain, you might spend a lot of time on this. Take stellar for example. Everybody knew that he was wrong, since his ciphers were always one way and at one point he said the devil wrote the VM. Yet various members, myself included, took the time to argue with him. This just depends on whether or not you want to spend your time on this kind of activity

I personally don't agree with the "ignoring people altogether" approach. That's theory thinking. I'd like to shift this to argument thinking. 
For example, I agree that the 15th century manufacture of the manuscript is a line in the sand. Yet someone who denies this, might still bring up valid points about other things. So if the argument is about for example the Marci letter, then my participating in the discussion will depend on whether I know enough about the subject or not. In this case I don't, so I don't participate.

Basically it's as follows. If a subject is being discussed and I have something to contribute (and the time to do so), I do. If I don't know enough about the subject and don't care to learn more about it, I stay out of the discussion.

This shifts the attention to the matter at hand: specific claims, specific arguments, about specific aspects of the manuscript. Away from personalities and grand theories - those get too much attention already.

I don't really have anything against the theories / hypotheses in group 1.
They come in all levels of maturity.
They're not necessarily mutually exclusive, and allow for a lot of lively discussion.
I've seen plenty of new insights, or confirmations of old insights.
Some of them may well be correct, but for most (I would argue) it is impossible to say either way.

I don't think it is wrong to work on the basis of theories or hypotheses.
Even assumptions.
This is as long as one stays critical, and keeps in mind what they are.

The problem (in all three groups) is when theories get a life of their own.
When they become convictions.

The worst that can happen is if one gets to the point where evidence is considered or rejected, not on the basis of its quality/reliability, but on the basis whether it fits with the theory or not.
This seems obvious, but it is a quite natural initial reaction, and even not always fully consciously.

One may also encounter arguments that are demonstrably incorrect. (And not just a matter of opinion).
This can be tricky, because it is not always clear that the person making these statements is aware of the incorrectness.

(12-08-2017, 11:28 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-08-2017, 10:11 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As you can most likely tell, I only really listen to the research of a handful of people who a) think like me, or b) are smart enough to make interesting and challenging theories which disagree with me (hi, Nick!).

If it's only a list of one I'm on, that's actually quite a miserable state of affairs. :-(

A miserable state of affairs for me or the manuscript?

I honestly find there's very little research on the text worth reading.

For the manuscript, because it would seem to imply that there is almost no actual research "community", just a lot of noisy keyboard tappers. :-(