(02-09-2017, 06:45 AM)Vonologia Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....we all have a built-in filter to decide what is real and what is entertainment...
I wish that were true. If it were true, Fox News would not have a certain four-letter word in it, and certain people would not be elected as high officials.
I don't think that people without a background knowledge of a subject can tell what is real and what is entertainment. They take what is said at face value if the person saying it has credentials, even if the credentials are not in the same subject area as might be needed to understand the subject at hand.
(02-09-2017, 06:45 AM)Vonologia Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
Personally, I don't find anything remotely entertaining about the idea of encountering yet more stupid theories put forward by clever people - particularly those ones who like to argue from a supposedly high (but strangely evidence-free) ground, while incessantly trolling everyone who disagrees with any part of their idiotic mental projection.
Surely only those with a refined taste for tragedy mixed with schadenfreude would find Voynich theorists and their foolishly ideological theories entertaining.
Please use neutral language. Our You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. provides guidelines for that.
Quote:For example, the following comments (all real life examples) illustrate what is not permitted:- The nonsensical theory as expounded by xxx;
- The ideas of XXX have no intellectual value;
- I remember when XXX said that the idea of YYY was moronic;
- XXX is of course a great subject matter expert;
etc.
I would also suggest to keep closer to the subject of this thread, namely to suggesting questions to Prof. Bax.
Back to the subject of Stephen Bax. Has he posted a document anywhere explaining his Voynich methodology?
He seems quick to claim some kind of intellectual kinship with Ventris and Champollion, but it remains far from clear to me whether or not this is justified. Genuine 'ninja' questions might usefully aim to find out what he thinks his specific approach brings to the Voynich community that previous crib-based amateur code-breakers had not already tried.
(02-09-2017, 02:52 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (02-09-2017, 06:45 AM)Vonologia Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
Personally, I don't find anything remotely entertaining about the idea of encountering yet more stupid theories put forward by clever people - particularly those ones who like to argue from a supposedly high (but strangely evidence-free) ground, while incessantly trolling everyone who disagrees with any part of their idiotic mental projection.
Surely only those with a refined taste for tragedy mixed with schadenfreude would find Voynich theorists and their foolishly ideological theories entertaining.
Just to be clear, a theory isn't ever stupid -- that is the nature of theory. What exactly is the ideology of the Voynich manuscript?
Hi Vonologia,
As suggested above, in this thread please focus on the subject of the thread, otherwise we'll lose the questions in the sea of offtopic. There are many threads on the forum for generic questions such as you would like to discuss - please feel free to use them or create a new one.
I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask, but I can't frame them correctly without watching the video again. I'm wondering how much time we have to pose these questions?
Stephen has agreed to do the interview but we haven't set a date yet. David is on vacation at the moment.
It could be anywhere between a week and a couple of months basically
Here are my proposals for a couple of questions.
At the end of your 2014 paper you wrote:
Quote:It is important not to underestimate the difficulties which lie ahead; this paper offers an analysis which is explicitly both provisional and partial. Indeed I suspect it will take many months, if not years, to test out, corroborate, and amend the analyses I have set out above, and perhaps several more to come to a full understanding of the document as a whole.
- What is your evaluation of the progress made during the last three years?
- How do you think further research should proceed?
(07-09-2017, 08:10 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- What is your evaluation of the progress made during the last three years?
- How do you think further research should proceed?
I presume you mean "progress made on his own theory" here, rather than "progress made by you on his blog"? ;-)