23-03-2020, 02:27 PM
Hello, Ms. Davis: I read with interest your Washington Post article, and have followed your theories about the Voynich Manuscript for some time. I found your critique of Mr. Cheshire's offering one of the best, in fact... although I also rate Koen's biting commentary pretty highly, and one of the more amusing. We all share in common that unfortunate experience, and I've no doubt there will be others in short order. But about your article:
"By beginning with their own preconceptions of what they want the Voynich to be, their conclusions take them further from the truth."
The preconceptions are not usually "what they want the Voynich to be" at first, but do morph into that, either through general intransigence, or by painting themselves into a reputational corner. One thing to realize, and remember (although most don't even realize it), is that the most common preconception is that the work is old and genuine. That is a heavily promoted "starting point", so people can't be blamed. It is the base premise of almost 100% of every article (even yours) and book, even many of the claimed translations. With that as such a powerfully projected preconception, it is not the fault of many that they accept it as factual, without ever really questioning "why?" they think this.
That is, people do not, as they should, start with the blank slate of "What is it?", but rather, "What genuine early 15th century European cipher manuscript is it?". And then all ensuing investigation begins as a self-fulfilling quest, a circular investigation. And this tendency to not question is strongly supported because all encouragement and support are within that paradigm. Anything outside of it, and anomalies and inconsistencies within it, are usually not even considered, certainly not satisfactorily explained, and often ignored. That is what paradigms do to protect themselves when challenged (T. Kuhn). And at the same time, anyone, or anything, that supports the paradigm is encouraged, heralded, and even nursed along.
"... I’ve been increasingly called upon by the media in recent years to comment on various theories."
That is exciting, to be asked to do this. It is part of a powerful dichotomy, driven by the paradigm, both to only look at 1420 Genuine European; and reject modern and fake, or all other possibles. And it is easy to do, too, with so many poor "translations" being offered. But it is my contention that if one does not really care about having "a seat at the table", and is likewise somewhat immune to the powers of rejection, if they can be truly introspective, they will be freed to see it as what it probably is: A particularly bad forgery, made in modern times, a laughable mockery of the genuine history of herbal literature.
"Recent chemical analyses, however, concluded that the oak gall ink and the mineral and botanical pigments are consistent with medieval recipes, and Carbon-14 analysis has dated the parchment to between 1404 and 1438. That rules out Roger Bacon (who was already dead), da Vinci (who hadn’t been born), and the peoples of post-contact Mesoamerica."
The ink is "consistent" with inks of the age of the parchment, but the ink is not dated. It could have been prepared and applied at any time up until 1912. And in fact, in the McCrone report there are questions, such as the presence of copper and zinc, and a "titanium compound", and also a gum binder that was not in the McCrone database. There are other points within that report which have not been answered or addressed. The lack of scrutiny can be explained by the preconception I've outlined: "It must be old, and it must be genuine, therefore those things which might offer alternatives must be unimportant."
This claim about the inks dating the manuscript is often used to support "old", but it is only one of dozens of such "projections as truth" which are either still undecided, unknown, arguable, or outright incorrect: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"I regularly receive Voynich “solutions” by email with requests for feedback. That feedback and my public comments are not always accepted in the constructively critical spirit in which they are given. I recently received an ugly and threatening direct message...".
Yes so have I, when critiquing these various theories and "translations". I actually commiserated with you back when we both... we all, probably, here... came up with very similar opinions on a certain recent theory, and suffered the wrath for doing so. Ironically, I get it from all sides, when critiquing these failures, and when discussing my own theory! So I know both sides of the sword, believe me. The critics, except for you and a few others, are often as hostile as the proposers of bad theories.
But that is the paradigm, again, protecting itself. It has a personality of its own, in defending itself against all opposing views... good, bad... none indifferent, though, in this field it seems.
"As executive director of the Medieval Academy of America, the largest organization in the world dedicated to the study of the Middle Ages..."
You are highly respected, and clearly deserve your reputation. Unfortunately, the Voynich being the "Perfect Storm of Obscure", there is a great deal of heated disagreement among a great many other qualified experts as to what the Voynich is, why it was written, when it was written, by whom, and what it contains. And the language... is it a language, a cipher, a code, or gibberish? And what language, if a language? Expert after expert disagree. My point here is, that with this problem, a degree in any of the related disciplines and about $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The reason is clear: If you have a thousand experts with a thousand theories, only one of them can be correct... which means that nine hundred and ninety-nine experts are wrong.
So it is often claimed that this expert is better than that one, or has the correct experience, or the right discipline, to really know what the Voynich is, and what it is not. But most experts must be wrong because most disagree with each other, and it is impossible to discern which one is correct, or in fact if any are. If they are wrong on A, and we know they must be, then why should anyone assume they are correct on B? But more importantly, one of the most indicative "red flags" of forgery is a high level of disagreement among experts. Genuine items simply do not have anywhere near the level of contentious debate as forgeries, and when they do have disagreement, it is usually explainable in some context. In the Voynich, this expert disagreement is not otherwise explainable, as the item appears to come from several well documented disciplines. It should be "expertly identifiable", but it is not. This one phenomenon screams "forgery!", but there are many others.
"... undercooked solutions presented without context lead readers down a rabbit hole of misinformation, conspiracy theories and the thoroughly unproductive fetishization of a fictional medieval past, turning an authentic and fascinating medieval manuscript into a caricature of itself."
Well I would counter that the 1420 Genuine Paradigm is "undercooked", because as I pointed out, it has many contrary anomalies which remained unaddressed, and relies on items stated as facts, which are anything but. But yes, I do agree with much of what you say, although I also note that in almost all of the discussions I've had over the years, the other parties do not, or cannot through lack of study, compare the Voynich in the context of the world of historical forgeries.
But yes, of course, no one can "turn" an object into something it is not. The theorists cannot, whether they theorize it is genuine, and 15th century, or a fake modern like me, or anything in between. But I see the 1420 Genuine Paradigm as an attempt to "turn it" into that, because on the contrary, it looks all the world to me like a "caricature" of a genuine Medieval work, of a popular culture impression of what a mysterious ancient grimore would have looked like to the mindset of an early 20th century anybody. It is as though this was all very clumsily cobbled together, from a widely varied, and grossly incompatible raft of sources, mostly improperly copied, as it was poorly understood, and then rudely and crudely assembled in an amateurish sort of "Katsenjammer Kids" cartoon style. It is, in my opinion, already very much a caricature: Not of itself, but rather, of anything remotely real.
I've seen the arguments, from experts and professionals alike. My own ideas as to "what genuine thing it might be" have varied over the years, until I gave them up, one after the other. I could not "turn" the Voynich into those things, and certainly had no interest in trying to do so. And I've arrived here, at Modern Fake, probably by Wilfrid, precisely because of that, and coming to realize that the reason is that what it most looks like, when one clears their heads of the preconceptions you warn against: A really cheap fake, that should have been rejected out of the starting gate in 1912, but which has been long propped up by wishful thinking, beloved romantic notions of ancient mysteries, and an unwillingness to admit to a failure of judgment on the part of probably hundreds of individuals.
"When we approach an ancient object such as the Voynich Manuscript, we tend to bring our preconceptions with us to the table. The more we burden the manuscript with what we want it to be, the more buried the truth becomes."
I agree with you, except for the idea this is ancient. So I hope you don't mind, in the spirit of free and open discussion, that I rebut the positions you hold, and encourage you to shed all preconceptions, and look at the Voynich Manuscript again. I think that like many, you might begin to come to a different conclusion than you have, perhaps even, mine. If not, that is wonderful, too. I appreciate opposition possibly more than agreement, it is the engine that keeps me engaged.
"By beginning with their own preconceptions of what they want the Voynich to be, their conclusions take them further from the truth."
The preconceptions are not usually "what they want the Voynich to be" at first, but do morph into that, either through general intransigence, or by painting themselves into a reputational corner. One thing to realize, and remember (although most don't even realize it), is that the most common preconception is that the work is old and genuine. That is a heavily promoted "starting point", so people can't be blamed. It is the base premise of almost 100% of every article (even yours) and book, even many of the claimed translations. With that as such a powerfully projected preconception, it is not the fault of many that they accept it as factual, without ever really questioning "why?" they think this.
That is, people do not, as they should, start with the blank slate of "What is it?", but rather, "What genuine early 15th century European cipher manuscript is it?". And then all ensuing investigation begins as a self-fulfilling quest, a circular investigation. And this tendency to not question is strongly supported because all encouragement and support are within that paradigm. Anything outside of it, and anomalies and inconsistencies within it, are usually not even considered, certainly not satisfactorily explained, and often ignored. That is what paradigms do to protect themselves when challenged (T. Kuhn). And at the same time, anyone, or anything, that supports the paradigm is encouraged, heralded, and even nursed along.
"... I’ve been increasingly called upon by the media in recent years to comment on various theories."
That is exciting, to be asked to do this. It is part of a powerful dichotomy, driven by the paradigm, both to only look at 1420 Genuine European; and reject modern and fake, or all other possibles. And it is easy to do, too, with so many poor "translations" being offered. But it is my contention that if one does not really care about having "a seat at the table", and is likewise somewhat immune to the powers of rejection, if they can be truly introspective, they will be freed to see it as what it probably is: A particularly bad forgery, made in modern times, a laughable mockery of the genuine history of herbal literature.
"Recent chemical analyses, however, concluded that the oak gall ink and the mineral and botanical pigments are consistent with medieval recipes, and Carbon-14 analysis has dated the parchment to between 1404 and 1438. That rules out Roger Bacon (who was already dead), da Vinci (who hadn’t been born), and the peoples of post-contact Mesoamerica."
The ink is "consistent" with inks of the age of the parchment, but the ink is not dated. It could have been prepared and applied at any time up until 1912. And in fact, in the McCrone report there are questions, such as the presence of copper and zinc, and a "titanium compound", and also a gum binder that was not in the McCrone database. There are other points within that report which have not been answered or addressed. The lack of scrutiny can be explained by the preconception I've outlined: "It must be old, and it must be genuine, therefore those things which might offer alternatives must be unimportant."
This claim about the inks dating the manuscript is often used to support "old", but it is only one of dozens of such "projections as truth" which are either still undecided, unknown, arguable, or outright incorrect: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"I regularly receive Voynich “solutions” by email with requests for feedback. That feedback and my public comments are not always accepted in the constructively critical spirit in which they are given. I recently received an ugly and threatening direct message...".
Yes so have I, when critiquing these various theories and "translations". I actually commiserated with you back when we both... we all, probably, here... came up with very similar opinions on a certain recent theory, and suffered the wrath for doing so. Ironically, I get it from all sides, when critiquing these failures, and when discussing my own theory! So I know both sides of the sword, believe me. The critics, except for you and a few others, are often as hostile as the proposers of bad theories.
But that is the paradigm, again, protecting itself. It has a personality of its own, in defending itself against all opposing views... good, bad... none indifferent, though, in this field it seems.
"As executive director of the Medieval Academy of America, the largest organization in the world dedicated to the study of the Middle Ages..."
You are highly respected, and clearly deserve your reputation. Unfortunately, the Voynich being the "Perfect Storm of Obscure", there is a great deal of heated disagreement among a great many other qualified experts as to what the Voynich is, why it was written, when it was written, by whom, and what it contains. And the language... is it a language, a cipher, a code, or gibberish? And what language, if a language? Expert after expert disagree. My point here is, that with this problem, a degree in any of the related disciplines and about $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The reason is clear: If you have a thousand experts with a thousand theories, only one of them can be correct... which means that nine hundred and ninety-nine experts are wrong.
So it is often claimed that this expert is better than that one, or has the correct experience, or the right discipline, to really know what the Voynich is, and what it is not. But most experts must be wrong because most disagree with each other, and it is impossible to discern which one is correct, or in fact if any are. If they are wrong on A, and we know they must be, then why should anyone assume they are correct on B? But more importantly, one of the most indicative "red flags" of forgery is a high level of disagreement among experts. Genuine items simply do not have anywhere near the level of contentious debate as forgeries, and when they do have disagreement, it is usually explainable in some context. In the Voynich, this expert disagreement is not otherwise explainable, as the item appears to come from several well documented disciplines. It should be "expertly identifiable", but it is not. This one phenomenon screams "forgery!", but there are many others.
"... undercooked solutions presented without context lead readers down a rabbit hole of misinformation, conspiracy theories and the thoroughly unproductive fetishization of a fictional medieval past, turning an authentic and fascinating medieval manuscript into a caricature of itself."
Well I would counter that the 1420 Genuine Paradigm is "undercooked", because as I pointed out, it has many contrary anomalies which remained unaddressed, and relies on items stated as facts, which are anything but. But yes, I do agree with much of what you say, although I also note that in almost all of the discussions I've had over the years, the other parties do not, or cannot through lack of study, compare the Voynich in the context of the world of historical forgeries.
But yes, of course, no one can "turn" an object into something it is not. The theorists cannot, whether they theorize it is genuine, and 15th century, or a fake modern like me, or anything in between. But I see the 1420 Genuine Paradigm as an attempt to "turn it" into that, because on the contrary, it looks all the world to me like a "caricature" of a genuine Medieval work, of a popular culture impression of what a mysterious ancient grimore would have looked like to the mindset of an early 20th century anybody. It is as though this was all very clumsily cobbled together, from a widely varied, and grossly incompatible raft of sources, mostly improperly copied, as it was poorly understood, and then rudely and crudely assembled in an amateurish sort of "Katsenjammer Kids" cartoon style. It is, in my opinion, already very much a caricature: Not of itself, but rather, of anything remotely real.
I've seen the arguments, from experts and professionals alike. My own ideas as to "what genuine thing it might be" have varied over the years, until I gave them up, one after the other. I could not "turn" the Voynich into those things, and certainly had no interest in trying to do so. And I've arrived here, at Modern Fake, probably by Wilfrid, precisely because of that, and coming to realize that the reason is that what it most looks like, when one clears their heads of the preconceptions you warn against: A really cheap fake, that should have been rejected out of the starting gate in 1912, but which has been long propped up by wishful thinking, beloved romantic notions of ancient mysteries, and an unwillingness to admit to a failure of judgment on the part of probably hundreds of individuals.
"When we approach an ancient object such as the Voynich Manuscript, we tend to bring our preconceptions with us to the table. The more we burden the manuscript with what we want it to be, the more buried the truth becomes."
I agree with you, except for the idea this is ancient. So I hope you don't mind, in the spirit of free and open discussion, that I rebut the positions you hold, and encourage you to shed all preconceptions, and look at the Voynich Manuscript again. I think that like many, you might begin to come to a different conclusion than you have, perhaps even, mine. If not, that is wonderful, too. I appreciate opposition possibly more than agreement, it is the engine that keeps me engaged.