(16-05-2019, 06:56 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (16-05-2019, 06:51 PM)doranchak Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The University retracted the story:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Good.
Quite funny at the same time.
"Following media coverage, concerns have been raised about the validity of this research from academics in the fields of linguistics and medieval studies."
Prior to media coverage, of course, one does not need to raise any concern. It is media only that make us concern, to begin with. No media, no concern altogether, cause media shape the world.
And only concern of academics is concern worth any concern. If academics miss a publication and do not raise concern, then we don't care! Not only do academics hold the monopoly of critical thinking, they exclusively bear the burden thereof. Others do not have to trouble themselves!
(16-05-2019, 10:59 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
And, what is most curious, this is the question that does not seem to bother each new Voynich-solver: "Why is my solution better than other ones?" It is as if each new solution were the only one.
Anton, yes indeed.
And maybe we should add, "Why is every solution different? And why are all the solvers equally sure they are right?"
(16-05-2019, 11:16 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (16-05-2019, 10:59 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
And, what is most curious, this is the question that does not seem to bother each new Voynich-solver: "Why is my solution better than other ones?" It is as if each new solution were the only one.
Anton, yes indeed.
And maybe we should add, "Why is every solution different? And why are all the solvers equally sure they are right?"
... it's like religions.
I must say I did like some of the ideas in Cheshire's paper, especially the volcano bit - was that an original interpretation?
(16-05-2019, 10:59 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (16-05-2019, 06:52 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (16-05-2019, 12:23 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The manuscript "has been deciphered", but "Cheshire hopes that fellow researchers will now use his findings to translate the entire Voynich manuscript."
As (almost) always, the decipherer leaves the deciphering to others. 
It's reasonable for somebody to say that they have discovered how the script and the text works but aren't really qualified to translate it all. Translating a small section of the text might be enough to demonstrate validity if supported by a well reasoned solution.
Emma, as spartans replied "if", I will reply - "might". 
...
I'm simply saying that deciphering and translating aren't the same thing. For a decipherer to call on language experts to translate the resulting text does not invalidate that decipherment. What invalidates it are bad reasoning and bad conclusions.
Sure, you can't output garbage and demand Old Cornish scholars tell you what it means. But you can say that your example translations are incomplete and rough, intended only to demonstrate the solution, and humbly admit that you're going to struggle improving them.
(17-05-2019, 12:03 AM)julian Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I must say I did like some of the ideas in Cheshire's paper, especially the volcano bit - was that an original interpretation?
No, not at all. Almost from the beginning of VMS research people have suggested some of the imagery on the "map" folio might be volcanoes.
As for Cheshire's specific references to the Naples area, well, it's a volcanic area so it's natural to consider it if one is talking about volcanoes (as are Sicily, Damascus, and other areas). I blogged about the Naples area before he released his papers, so it's not a new idea.
As for his idea of Rotums 8 and 9 being places people went while fleeing the eruption, that might be original, I'm not sure, but the text he "decoded" really doesn't refer to volcanoes (he mostly read that into it). According to his "translation" there are more references to the sea and seaports than there are to volcanoes, so even his own interpretation is a bit at odds with his assessment of the imagery.
(16-05-2019, 11:11 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quite funny at the same time.
"Following media coverage, concerns have been raised about the validity of this research from academics in the fields of linguistics and medieval studies."
Well it was an undue amount of media coverage. They never expected to have all UK media and lots of other European media on their back, and to have Bristol University all of a sudden being mentioned on national TV in several countries. And it was already taking the turn from positive to negative coverage.
I can only imagine what their inbox may have been looking like.
They responded well in my opinion. Still neutral enough.
Hi Rene,
It was not media who published a news article on the University's website - the article which they now simply deleted.
I don't feel like all the blame can be placed on the university. The most unfortunate step is that Cheshire's article got through "peer review" in the first place. When that happened, the University's PR people reported on it by default.
Ideally of course this should have been a two-step verification process. But I can comprehend how the thing ended up on the university press release. But I cannot understand how this mockery of science got through peer review.
I once published a reviewed article about my master's thesis in a semi-popular magazine. Review standards were not very high, but still my first version was read attentively by four or five people and some of them were quite demanding.
With that in mind, I can't imagine a scenario where Cheshire got his abomination through peer review which doesn't involve either major incompetence or fraud.
Or does the Sphinx cause blindness even in reviewers?
Hi Koen,
When the article's abstract is expressly praising it's author's "ingenuity" and "lateral thinking", I highly doubt that there was any independent review at all (let alone any decent editorial effort). As JKP already pointed out, it's not the style of science, it's the style of advertising.
It went into a crappy online paid for journal that just needs to bulk out its content. There are loads of them, that will pretend to peer review - in reality it's just proof reading - before publication.
Then the uni issued a standard press release, probably boiler plate with 'insert name here' fields, because it's great to have loads of punished articles by researchers.
This probably happens hundreds of times a week, due entirely to the current fashion of judging researchers blindly by the number of articles they've had published.
This one just happened to blow up in their faces!