The Voynich Ninja

(14-11-2022, 11:49 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.who happens to say something that fits in your theory.

You accuse me of bias. I am advocating thoroughness.

If your dating theory is strong enough you should be able to demonstrate it. Saying that when I look for more evidence I am somehow doing something wrong is unfair. If you are being objective you should welcome someone analysing and critiquing your hypothesis.

I have pointed out a number of ways in which your theory could be more thorough, there should be nothing wrong with that.

So by your reasoning I could say that you want to dismiss people or evidence "that happens to say or do something that contradicts your theory."

I appreciate that you have put a lot of time and really done an excellent job in exploring this question and that understandably you don't appreciate someone questioning your theory that is normal and human, but there is nothing wrong in so doing that is the scientific method. If you doubt my critique then you are welcome to argue against it, but to just dismiss it is not fair.

Listing the dates Koen gives on the first page of this thread and taking the midpoint where a range is given we have:

1400
1412.5
1411
1411
1423
1412.5
1412
1405
1412.5
1410
1403
1407
1389.5
1414
1428
1415
1405
1402
1430
1405
1427.5
1427.5
1405
1389.5
1415
1423
1420
1408
1418
1450
1400
1460
1415
1427.5
1433.5
1420
1435


Note I have not removed any datapoints as non-manuscript art as I do not see why that is relevant. If there is a good reason for excluding those entries them I would be happy to hear it.

I have calculated on the basis of this data that the mean average year of these dates is:

1415.74 to 2 decimal places

The standard deviation appears to be:

14.61 years to 2 decimal places

The sample size is:

37

I think it is reasonable to work on the basis that the dates are normally distributed.

I believe in the carbon dating a 95% confidence interval is considered. This is quite normal, so I will do the same here.

Without considering sample size I believe we are looking at a range from -1.96 to 1.96 of the standard deviation.

So this gives us a range from:

1415.74 - (1.96×14.61) = 1387.11

to:

1415.74 + (1.96×14.61) = 1444.38

So to the year on the basis of the dates on the first page we would say that we 95% confidence the crossbowman was drawn between the years 1387 and 1444. This compares with the carbon dating that leads one to conclude that with 95% confidence the Voynich manuscript parchment dates to between the years 1404 and 1438. So on this basis this makes for a closer fit for the carbon dating than the crossbowman dating.

So on that basis one could conclude that it is perfectly reasonable that the Voynich crossbowman was drawn between 1430 and 1438 and does need necessarily pre-date 1430.

These are crude calculations, so I would greatly  appreciate it if someone crosschecked them as I may have missed something. It would be great if someone conducted a more rigorous analysis, however it does seem to contradict the notion that the drawing of the crossbowman must pre-date 1430.

New data or analysis may change this picture.

I have also listed some other concerns with Koen's analysis elsewhere. Having said that I would reiterate that Koen has done an excellent job raising and exploring this subject.

Some items are listed as "many manuscripts". Does that mean there are many copies of that manuscript? Should we count them as multiple datapoints rather than a single one then?

(14-11-2022, 11:49 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.some poor art historian who happens to say something that fits in your theory.

I have no interest in trying to make my theory fit.

If dating contradicts my theory then I want to know. I certainly don't want to labour under a false theory.

I think you also have to ask yourself if you want to labour under a false theory. If your claims about dating are not correct, do you still want to believe and argue for them? You should be pleased when people like me challenge or examine your claims.

Surely truth is preferable to delusion. It comes down to evidence and analysis.

When thinking of manuscript data, is the number of times a "baggy elbow" is illustrated in a given manuscript relevant? If it is just once or many times should one take account of that? Is it relevant the number of times in the manuscript people are drawn without a "baggy elbow"?

I think it is worth noting that by taking the midpoint of a date range one is necessarily reducing the variance and therefore standard deviation which would actually give a large confidence interval date range, though maybe not by much in this case.

Perhaps we could consider a more humanistic perspective. Let's say the VMs artist lived through the years 1400 to 1450 - roughly. Someone whose youth and/or best days were spent in the 1420s - at the height of fashion as demonstrated by the historical illustrations. Then, looking back, some time later in life, they choose to replicate those memories. The 'Good Old Days" when things were 'Cool, Daddio!'

Like the C-14 dating, each item of potential artistic identification can have a certain chronological placement - or not. The cosmic comparison with BNF Fr. 565 opens with a date circa 1410. The fashion investigation suggests a date during or after the 1420s. And the Golden Fleece sets a date not before 1430. After 1430, these potential artistic identifications would all be valid.

(14-11-2022, 08:00 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Perhaps we could consider a more humanistic perspective. Let's say the VMs artist lived through the years 1400 to 1450 - roughly. Someone whose youth and/or best days were spent in the 1420s - at the height of fashion as demonstrated by the historical illustrations. Then, looking back, some time later in life, they choose to replicate those memories. The 'Good Old Days" when things were 'Cool, Daddio!'

Like the C-14 dating, each item of potential artistic identification can have a certain chronological placement - or not. The cosmic comparison with BNF Fr. 565 opens with a date circa 1410. The fashion investigation suggests a date during or after the 1420s. And the Golden Fleece sets a date not before 1430. After 1430, these potential artistic identifications would all be valid.

It is possible, I don't know. I think what appears to be clear is that there is plenty of good reason to doubt the claim that the crossbowman was definitely not drawn after 1430. If that claim is indeed correct more work needs to be done to justify it.

That's the thing about the 'humanistic perspective' which is that memory can skew the timeline. It may be true that the archer represents a situation that would only be valid pre-1430. Yet the representation itself (in the VMs) could have been remembered and reproduced a decade (1440) or more afterwards.

(14-11-2022, 08:27 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's the thing about the 'humanistic perspective' which is that memory can skew the timeline. It may be true that the archer represents a situation that would only be valid pre-1430. Yet the representation itself (in the VMs) could have been remembered and reproduced a decade (1440) or more afterwards.

Yeah, that's sounds very plausible.