The Voynich Ninja

The evidence for any particular topic is going to depend on the specific  topic that is chosen. Once the topic is chosen, the relevant evidence can be presented, and examined in detail.

The topic to which I refer is the use of the nebuly line in the VMs starting with the example in the VMs cosmos. If, by means of the recovery of traditional terminology, and the examples of traditional use, we have established the relationship that a cosmic boundary can be represented by a nebuly line, then it should become easier to recognize the ideological equivalency between the fancy, scallop-shell patterned cloud-bands of the BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 image with the plain ink line seen in the VMs. There is no way that these two elements are comparatively similar in appearance. The similarity is ideological in that they are both cloud-based relative to other possibilities, and the similarity is structural in that both circuits exhibit 43 undulations.

Look at the central earth. The Oresme illustration is pictorial. The VMs makes no attempt at being pictorial. The VMs is linguistic. The VMs is not a copy of the Oresme image. The VMs creator has (apparently) chosen to transmit infoormation through a totally different methodology. This is called a code shift. There is no way that the two representations are going to look the same. Yet both exemplify an inverted T-O structure. Now, inverted T-O structures exist in a number of different sources, but having one inside a cosmic diagram decidedly limits the number of current examples. The prominent representation of this time is a cosmos comprised of multiple concentric circles/spheres. The structures of comparative examples is entirely different. This is based on the original comparison offered in 2014 by E. Velinska.

I am an avid supporter of this comparison. It shows that while the majority of depictions of the cosmos followed what was then the current format of multiple planetary spheres, there was this small group of cosmic depictions based on a distinctive alternate structure. That group consists of Oresme's BNF Fr. 565, made in Paris c. 1410; the de Metz' text Harley 334, made in Paris 1430-1440; and the VMs.

[Here history intervenes to tell us that Paris was occupied from 1420 to 1435 by the Anglo-Burgundian alliance.]

Is it possible that the common factor of Paris creation accounts for the strong visual and structural similarity between the 'Oresme' and 'de Metz' versions of the cosmos. Further comparison with the one other 'Oresme' cosmos (BNF Fr. 1082) and multiple other versions of cosmic diagrams in various replications of 'de Metz' suggest that it is not the content of the material, but the choice and 'artistic freedom' of the artist that determine the appearance of these cosmic diagrams.

It's true that there is more to the VMs cosmic representation than just the structural equivalent of the Oresme image. There is an outer circle or 'wheel' connected to the interior by eight curved spokes. This can be seen in several ways. If the nebuly line is the cosmic boundary, then what lies beyond it? How is that to be determined and represented? The circle and the spokes consist of bands of linguistic text. What is the traditional interpretation of text band in medieval illustrations? <They are ephemeral.>

The creator of the VMs cosmic illustration has subjected the image to a lot of apparent manipulation / alteration. It might be considered whether this was intentional. And whether it goes further. The best and simplest inhibitor to the clear identification of a single image is the use of a combined representation, a sort of 'oak and ivy', if you will.  'A + B' cannot be show as equivalent to 'A' because it contains 'B'. Likewise it is not equivalent to 'B' because it contains 'A'. Neither can it be shown to be the combination that it is, if either 'A' or 'B' (and particularly when both 'A' and "B') are unfamiliar to the investigator. (Newbold called this a drawing of Andromeda.)

What image provides the structure of a wheel with eight curved spokes. To my knowledge the example here seems to be the Shirakatsi diagram of the Eight Phases of the Moon. Just flip it over and drop the cosmos in the open center. But how do these two disparate items possibly come together? This is where things get interesting.

(26-04-2020, 07:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The case that I keep running into I would like to call 'proof by example'. It may have a proper name, but I don't know it. It is related to 'disproof by counter-example'.  Both may be valid in some cases, but are not valid in many other cases.

If one wants to prove that something is possible, then giving an example is sufficient of course.
However, let me illustrate the problem with an easy example.

Suppose I hold a fruit behind my back and I ask someone to guess what it is, and I tell him that the fruit is yellow. The answer could be: it has to be a lemon, because a lemon is yellow. This is what I would call 'proof by example'. It is obviously not valid, because it could also be a banana. 
It is not sufficient to argue about the likelihood of the two cases, because there are even more yellow fruit, some which the guesser is not even familiar with.

This sounds like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

(29-04-2020, 06:35 AM)Stephen Carlson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2020, 07:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The case that I keep running into I would like to call 'proof by example'. It may have a proper name, but I don't know it.

...

Suppose I hold a fruit behind my back and I ask someone to guess what it is, and I tell him that the fruit is yellow. The answer could be: it has to be a lemon, because a lemon is yellow.

...

This sounds like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Or possibly just a syllogism:

The fruit is yellow, lemons are yellow, therefore the fruit is a lemon

I don't just take it for granted, I do experiments.
It means there's a high possibility, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be.
Although my tests show that he switched the a and o.
That possible dialects have a margin of error.

This thread is appreciated however i fear it will be forever You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2020, 07:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A typical issue is that evidence is not weighted on its objective strength, but on whether it is favourable or unfavourable to one's thoughts.

This issue is indeed very common, especially if it comes to an undeciphered writing system.

The problem to decipher an unknown writing system is often underrated (see J. Gelb in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., 1975). 

The human instinct is to look for meaning even if there is none. The intuitive way to decipher an unknown writing system is therefore to handle it like something we already know. Isn't it tempting to try to guess the language and to interpret some meaning into the symbols? Unfortunately it is only necessary to invent a language and anything can mean anything. It we guess that the language is some form of proto-latin, a combination of Mesoamerican languages, an unknown Turkish dialect, or an unknown constructed language every guess works. It only depends on the will and imagination of the decipherer if an error is explained away or not. Therefore the trial and error method has to be avoided.

Instead of that, a systematic approach to decipher an unknown writing system using an unknown language is necessary. For doing so we must describe the most characteristic properties and determine typical patterns. Only if we understand the writing system this will tell us something about the language (see for instance the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

Therefore, not only the solution itself but also the way of deciphering an unknown script is interesting and important. To ask for the way the solution was reached should be a first test to a decipherment attempt. Researchers using the trial and error method are unable to explain how the writing system works. Moreover they have to admit that they were only guessing.

(27-05-2020, 10:19 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Therefore, not only the solution itself but also the way of deciphering an unknown script is interesting and important. To ask about the way to reach the solution is also a possibility to test a decipherment attempt. Researchers using the trial and error method are unable to explain how the writing system works. Moreover they have to admit that they were only guessing.

Acquiring a deep understanding of how unknown scripts can be deciphered, and planning a systematic approach based on this understanding, is certainly more likely to yield results than a trial-and-error approach. That makes sense. However, if you're saying that any deciphering attempt that takes a trial-and-error approach can (or should) be preemptively dismissed, that's going too far.

A lot depends on how seriously one wishes to take this exercise. I agree that a solid bottom-up methodology, not just a decryption, is a reasonable standard to hold a career cryptographer like yourself to. By the same token, if an amateur researcher has nothing but a hunch, and chooses to investigate it and share what he finds just for fun, he does not deserve a dismissive or condescending response. He owes it to any experts who take the time to  critique his decryption to take the criticism gracefully, and admit, as you put it, "that they were only guessing," and guessed wrong. There is no shame in this.

An amateur hunch-tester taking criticism of his theory less than gracefully is not cool. If he implies that he's equal to an expert, and refuses to defer to real expertise when presented with it, then a dismissive response is fair. My advice to any fellow non-expert amateur enthusiasts of the VMs: Be honest with yourself about whether your decryption method is really working. And if it isn't working, abandon that theory and try again. Share any new hunch-based theory early on in its development if you're planning on sharing it at all. Be humble. Understand and own the limits of your knowledge, and be grateful that any expert is even bothering to respond to you. This way, if your theory doesn't work, you're not so invested in it that you're unwilling to admit you're wrong.

I have come up with six VMs theories. I have thrown away all of them, after seeing logical problems and noticing a lack of decryption power. I have no regrets and no sense of wasted time; I've had an adventure and learned a lot about a lot of different things along the way. I'll probably come up with a few more VMs theories before I die. To each his own.

(27-05-2020, 10:19 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2020, 07:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A typical issue is that evidence is not weighted on its objective strength, but on whether it is favourable or unfavourable to one's thoughts.

This issue is indeed very common, especially if it comes to an undeciphered writing system.

It is very common indeed, and can be found in all types of hypotheses about the Voynich MS, including theories about the origin, identifications of illustrations, etc.
It is closely related to 'confirmation bias' and I was intrigued to see the acute description of this by Francis Bacon, centuries ago already, in a recent post by Koen.

The 'logic issues' topic remains one of my favourite, and there are so many interesting aspects.

Fortunately quite rare is the case when historical or scientific questions are discussed in the style of a political debate. Now political debate is not bad in itself - it has its place when trying to convince people of programmes and points of view. These can also be held in very reasonable, and in not all that reasonable ways.

I leave aside those historical/scientific questions that do indeed have a strong political aspect, like the old one whether the Earth is in the centre of the universe, and the modern one about global warming.

However, all questions related to the Voynich MS should be far away from that situation.

Typical symptoms are: attempts to divide people into 'camps', considering or speaking about 'tactics', essentially all types of 'ad hominem' arguments, or anything that detracts from the real argument.