(27-08-2017, 05:08 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
As far as I know, Stephen Bax has always acknowledged his sources, both on his blog and in his papers.
If there are people who carelessly quote his blog failing to appropriately credit specific contributors, this is their problem, not Stephen's.
I think the problem with the Voynich community is not so much that when ideas are quoted the authors are not credited, but that bad ideas are more often quoted than good ideas.
Yes, I agree, and I did not specifically point my finger at Bax for this, which is why I was careful with my wording.
But the dynamic exists. If it comes out of the mouth of a person who has received a lot of publicity, the public implicitly believes it (and believes the person to be the source). We should acknowledge this basic problem of human nature, and take care not to promote misconceptions.
And also, I stay with my original stand on his reading of the VMS. His ideas have received no support from any quarter (including Bax himself), despite almost 4 years having passed, except by people (yes, I'm aware there is a follow-up youtube video by someone else) accepting his fundamentals and trying to build on them without critical evaluation of whether they are well-grounded.
As for questions. I don't know, I'd like to support Koen on this because I think the video series is fundamentally a good idea, but I can't quite think of a way to frame them without implied endorsement. I'll give it some more brain cycles.
Nick: we want as much input from forum members as possible, which means that part of the questions we ask will be determined by you. Don't waste your chance
JKP: don't forget that there will surely be more interviews to follow. Different viewers will prefer different types of interviewees, so I'm mixing it up as much as possible.
About group discussions, I have one thing in mind, which is more of an "online brainstorm" rather than a debate. For example, a discussion about the direction Voynich studies should go should be interesting with people like Nick.
(27-08-2017, 07:44 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP: don't forget that there will surely be more interviews to follow. Different viewers will prefer different types of interviewees, so I'm mixing it up as much as possible.
About group discussions, I have one thing in mind, which is more of an "online brainstorm" rather than a debate. For example, a discussion about the direction Voynich studies should go should be interesting with people like Nick.
I like the idea of a brainstorm, it's a positive way to approach it, and directions for VMS studies strikes me as a good topic.
As for more interviews... I'm thinking about this one and if there is some way to frame these questions so that it's not confrontational but also so it doesn't appear to endorse what I consider to be a bad interpretation of the text that got far too much attention... well, that's a bit of a tightrope walk, but I think I have a question. I just have to figure out how to word it.
Getting back to the topic at hand, which was questions to S. Bax:
- Stephen Bax seems to believe that the Voynich is not a cipher but a language in odd or new script, with some word modifications reflecting grammar here and there (prefixes, infixes, suffixes). My question to him then would be why we notice certain patterns such as LAAFU etc which do not seem to reflect a natural language just written in a new script... But admittedly this is not my area of expertise: I think it would be really good to have the input of Emma May Smith for this type of question.
If he thinks these things (all of them, not just one or two) do coexist in a single natural language, I would like to know which one fits all of those criteria. Or does he deny the existence of these properties of the Voynich text?
- Another question would revolve around his rather rare status as an academic and Voynich enthusiast, such as whether or not he has had the chance to discuss the Voynich with other academics, especially other linguists, and whether he has had any feedback from his linguist colleagues about his Voynich theories. After all his theory is one of the most widely publicized so I'd expect he's gotten at least some academic feedback.
- Finally I think that there are some very valid questions in nickpelling's blogpost referenced above, in spite of the tone of the conversation. I think it would be interesting to reprise some of these questions, perhaps with a bit less vitriol... The fact that the two obviously have some bad blood doesn't make nickpelling's questions any less valid! I think it would be interesting to see how Bax addresses some of these questions. After all that blogpost is 3 years old now and perhaps Stephen Bax's views have evolve d on some of these points.
And finally, I'd like to add my opinion on these interviews in general:
Frankly I do not see the point of interviewing Voynicheros who have blogs, we can just ask them our questions ourselves in the comments sections of their blogs any day.
IMO the interviews' real value is to get some non-Voynich centric people to interview, perhaps retired academics from various fields (so they're less afraid of the impact on their careers) or at least people we don't usually hear a lot from, as you have done with Clemens... I'd love to hear an interview with Paula Zyats for example (although I think there might be some hard-hitting questions for her!)
Woah, lot of excitement here. Let's lay out our objectives first.
We're currently interviewing experts on Voynich related subjects. We're not discussing solutions here.
So when we interview prof Bax, or anyone else in the current series, it will purely be as a professional in his field of expertise.
We have a vague script outlining the questions, although this changes depending upon the thrust of the conversation. If the subject wishes, they can see the questions in advance (in this series).
We certainly have no intention of getting into a solution specific discussion. But if we do, then we will be prearmed with material to cross examine the witness. If, and only if, they want to venture into that territory.
Now, if in the future we decide to setup a panel style webcam, participants will be advised of the format when being invited, and ground rules will be laid out. Equally if we decide to interview claimed solution solvers. But that's not what we are proposing in the first series.
So, I repeat the original question: does Anyone have an original question to put to a professor of linguistics interested in the Voynich?
(The marginalia proposal was excellent, by the way).
Good questions so far, we will incorporate these in some way in the interview.
VViews, about the interviewees: it's different when they are active on the forum. Rene for example is also an interesting person in Voynich studies but since he's around the forum a lot there would be little added value to having David and me chat with him
Bax, however, isn't heard that often lately and he's not active on the forum. On his "blog" he posts the work of others, and he responds mostly to comments by newcomers. As mentioned before, he
is professionally active in an academic field related to the VM, which is another reason to interview him. The fact that he has a broad knowledge about various languages and especially since he masters a non-Indo-European language makes that he can add this background to the conversation.
Like you I am also interested in his unique position as an experienced academic who wrote about the manuscript and has not yet abandoned the field. Talking about this won't help us solve much, but I still find it interesting in another way.
(27-08-2017, 09:08 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Bax, however, isn't heard that often lately and he's not active on the forum. On his "blog" he posts the work of others, and he responds mostly to comments by newcomers.
Normally one would expect at least SOME follow-up from someone with a genuine interest in the text.
I would love to hear from someone with expertise in dating medieval manuscripts and topics along those lines. Or someone from the British Library or the Florentine library with knowledge of how manuscripts are acquired and ones that might be available for view but are not yet digitized, for example.
(27-08-2017, 08:45 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Woah, lot of excitement here. Let's lay out our objectives first.
We're currently interviewing experts on Voynich related subjects. We're not discussing solutions here.
So when we interview prof Bax, or anyone else in the current series, it will purely be as a professional in his field of expertise.
We have a vague script outlining the questions, although this changes depending upon the thrust of the conversation. If the subject wishes, they can see the questions in advance (in this series).
We certainly have no intention of getting into a solution specific discussion. But if we do, then we will be prearmed with material to cross examine the witness. If, and only if, they want to venture into that territory.
Hi David,
I don't think it's realistic that interviewing Stephen Bax will be the same as interviewing any academic linguist. Stephen never claimed he has a "solution", but he has a detailed theory about several aspects of the language: most linguists have never looked into Voynichese at all.
So you can discuss LAAFU with Stephen, while I guess the average linguist would have no familiarity with the concept.
I think it's both unavoidable and desirable to move into the territory of the specifics Voynichese. I agree with what others wrote: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. offer many interesting points to discuss. It's a pity that their discussion didn't start in a more constructive tone and ended even worse. With this interview, you have a chance to pick up that dialogue and see if there are specific area in which a synthesis of the two points of view is possible.
For what it's worth, I just re-read Bax's (2014) "A proposed partial decoding of the Voynich script".
If you have had the misfortune to read many Voynich theories, you'll immediately recognize almost all the things Bax does:
* dismissing previous research as somehow misguided ("all of Currier’s examples can be explained straightforwardly as no more than idiosyncratic scribal differences when writing the same language, of a kind and a degree typical of the period")
* the "house of cards" argument structure, where each component part is claimed to support each other part
* heavy reliance on the results of preceding Voynich theories (Taurus, Sherwood), all the while silently bracketing out the way in which those wonky results were reached
* selective hypotheses that are true when useful and false otherwise (how can the Voynich be an abjad system some of the time and not the rest?)
* viewing the whole of recorded history as a giant grab bag of word-fragments to dip into as useful
* referring to famous historical decryptions as though the exact same methodology is being applied (it isn't)
* relying on polyglot and wobbly historical spelling to smooth over the many internal inconsistencies that immediately present themselves to the reader.
Never mind any of the details (which are also pretty terrible), the first big problem is how to tell Bax's paper apart from any Voynich theory you can name, when he does exactly the same kind of things in exactly the same kind of way that they do.
(28-08-2017, 04:47 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For what it's worth, I just re-read Bax's (2014) "A proposed partial decoding of the Voynich script".
If you have had the misfortune to read many Voynich theories, you'll immediately recognize almost all the things Bax does:
* dismissing previous research as somehow misguided ("all of Currier’s examples can be explained straightforwardly as no more than idiosyncratic scribal differences when writing the same language, of a kind and a degree typical of the period")
* the "house of cards" argument structure, where each component part is claimed to support each other part
* heavy reliance on the results of preceding Voynich theories (Taurus, Sherwood), all the while silently bracketing out the way in which those wonky results were reached
* selective hypotheses that are true when useful and false otherwise (how can the Voynich be an abjad system some of the time and not the rest?)
* viewing the whole of recorded history as a giant grab bag of word-fragments to dip into as useful
* referring to famous historical decryptions as though the exact same methodology is being applied (it isn't)
* relying on polyglot and wobbly historical spelling to smooth over the many internal inconsistencies that immediately present themselves to the reader.
Never mind any of the details (which are also pretty terrible), the first big problem is how to tell Bax's paper apart from any Voynich theory you can name, when he does exactly the same kind of things in exactly the same kind of way that they do.
Just rudimentarily, most would probably discount the "word association" solutions if they believe that the VMS is code/cipher/shorthand. However, if he owned his theories, he is still in academia, and people still have an interest, then from an entertainment perspective, seems like he should be included like anyone else. Many discount Bax or SantaColoma or (fill in the blank)...be pragmatic. Go with more clicks. Publicly, at least, some of these people may prefer being 'entertainment' to academia -- that certainly isn't new. As long as the conversation level is discourse and not insults, we all have a built-in filter to decide what is real and what is entertainment. A spectrum of theories is better entertainment, but not necessarily beneficial to those who take this very seriously and from a very defined focus. So what is your spectrum/focus? Just one opinion.