(13-08-2020, 05:35 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Mark Knowles
There is so little of real substance that is known about the Voynich manuscript
The last sentence "There is so little of real substance that is known about the Voynich manuscript" is [u' Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.wrong[/u], but this is exactly the thought by people who prefer not to read earlier work (or really have no time).
It is by propagating this misinformation that people may be led to believe there is no need to inform oneself.
I, myself, have read plenty of earlier writing on the Voynich. For example, I have read every word on your website and I have read enough about the Voynich to be pretty confident that having read even more I am very likely to come to the same conclusion. And having read what I have, I have reluctantly come to the afore stated opinion on the limitations of our knowledge. Some can see this as a glass half-full or half-empty question, but I know how it appears to me. I am not trying to minimising people's efforts or achievements, but point out that present knowledge of the manuscript is very limited.
Mark, without wanting to turn this into a personal thing, from your many statements here and on cipher mysteries, it is clear that you are not familiar with some of the key statistical properties of the text, let alone the many more specific analyses that have been done, and are relevant.
As long as you think that the Voynich MS could be an implementation of an Italian diplomatic cipher, you demonstrate this clearly. But maybe you have changed your view of that?
'Understanding' the Voynich MS takes a very long learning curve, and a completely non-standard one.
Now I agree that we don't yet know enough to be able to interpret the text.
However, the main point is that we know 'enough' to invalidate the vast majority of proposed solutions at a moment's notice. The proposers of these solutions don't understand that, because they don't know 'enough'. This makes the related discussions tedious and pointless.
There is a good example of that running on this forum right now....
As far as Curse goes, it turns out that doing all the rights clearance for an ebook is very much more complicated (and expensive) than for a normal book. :-(
14 years on, there's the added complication that my judgements and opinions on many aspects of the evidence have shifted.
And how heavily should I revise it?
As suggested by RenegadeHealer You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
There could be a 'Voynich Essentials' required reading list, a general one and one specific for Computational attacks.
Maybe a even a 'white paper' style post about transcription issues, previous work, statistical properties and problems with the VMS in relation to computational attacks.
That would be very helpful and those issues and related works would then hopefully find their way into the literature.
Of course an actual published paper addressing and explaining the relevant computational issues would be the most direct way.
(13-08-2020, 04:22 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
As for new VMs related papers, I recommend skipping right to the end and looking at the bibliography / references. Think of a Voynichero's bibliography as his/her answer to the question, Who taught you all you know about the VMs? It should be a pretty good indicator of whether they have a comprehensive and up-to-date enough understanding of the basic established facts, to support the new factual claims they're making.
I wish that were true. In an honest world it would be. Unfortunately, I have met people in the academic sphere who cite papers they have never read just to give their own writings some credibility. I have also known people who bypass the place where they actually got the information and cite an earlier (less complete) source to hide their actual source (doing an end-run around a contemporary researcher).
I've seen some pretty ugly behavior in academic circles. An acquaintance of mine almost lost a masters degree because her research partner ran off with all the research, most of which my acquaintance had done. Professors are sometimes guilty as well. One professor gave 'assignments' to his students to collect research on index cards (he was an older low-tech professor) and the grade was based on volume. Did the students learn anything from it? Not much. He was having them do research for his papers without telling them what he was doing. Freshman go to university with a lot of trust and don't always recognize that they are being used.
Based on experience, I have become suspicious of almost everything I read, which is why I usually read every word to make sure it's coherent and cohesive and follows logical premises.
To me the methodology is the most important part. Regardless of the citations, regardless of the conclusions (which can be wrong even if the methodology is good), if the methodology is good there is probably some value in the paper and you don't necessarily have to accept the conclusion (which is often a subjective interpretation of the results). If the methodology is good and well described, you can try to replicate or use the results.
(13-08-2020, 04:51 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've seen some pretty ugly behavior in academic circles.
I have seen some pretty nasty stuff too. I will however not discuss them here, I need some peace of mind...
(13-08-2020, 04:51 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Based on experience, I have become suspicious of almost everything I read, which is why I usually read every word to make sure it's coherent and cohesive and follows logical premises.
This is a very good and healthy philosophy. Stick with it.
(13-08-2020, 04:51 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me the methodology is the most important part. Regardless of the citations, regardless of the conclusions (which can be wrong even if the methodology is good), if the methodology is good there is probably some value in the paper and you don't necessarily have to accept the conclusion (which is often a subjective interpretation of the results). If the methodology is good and well described, you can try to replicate or use the results.
I agree on this. I have read academic papers (concerning other subjects than VM) published in well-reputed high Impact-Factor journals which lacked good description of methodology necessary to repeat the experiments. The problem with those journals and their editors is that they sometimes seem to make go of this requirement if they feel they could publish a paper with good potential to be cited often (mainly due to the significance of the results), and this does not always jibe with a flawless methodology. They do this just to maintain, or increase their citation counts (which supposedly is seen as an indicator of the prestige/quality of the journal, but I think the importance of this indicator is vastly over-rated).
There are a few fundamental things that remain valid regardless of the field, and the intended impact of any paper. One of these is to be clear about one's input data and to worry about its quality.
Another is to find a way to verify one's results.
Another is to be familiar with earlier work about the same topic.
For this last point it is not sufficient to just list some references, one has to know them. They also have to be relevant. Of course, the Voynich MS, and particularly its text analysis is a fringe subject and there are no easily available introductory courses. It means one has to do a lot of homework by oneself. (I could add a few more points but they would only serve the purpose of annoying 75% of readers here, so I'll leave them out :-) ).
Taking the recent paper about hyper-vectors as an example, this is an interesting piece of work. It has original thought going into it. It describes one experiment.
The main weakness is in the fact that the conclusion is not placed in any context. It is not compared with anything else. There is no way of knowing (and it comes across that the author also doesn't know - but I am guessing) if this confirms earlier work, repeats earlier work, or is contradicted by earlier work.
The second weakness is the unfamiliarity with the source text, the general problem with transliteration quality and the text variations inside the MS.
Putting it on a web page and bringing it to the attention of the people here was (in my opinion) the right thing to do. Being open for discussion and suggestions is even more commendable. It is much more common for people to take a bastion approach and defend one's points against all odds.
Yes, academic publications can take basically all levels of quality, but taking a few bad cases cannot be used to condemn the whole thing.
One of the things I will never forget is, when the MS expert Abigail Quandt was asked for her opinion about any and all aspects of the Voynich MS, one of the first things she did was to ask the opinion about one specific aspect from a senior colleague in Holland, knowing that this was more his area. This is scientific collaboration, and mutual respect for peers. I know this also from my own field of work.
I suppose that in areas of great commercial interest this is likely to be different, but the Voynich MS is fortunately very far away from that.
Part of the problem is the absence of a handy up-to-date reference which would be not descriptive (like e.g. Rene's website), but assertive. In many fields of knowledge one has sources such as textbooks and handbooks to start with, which contain statements of established facts, which would cut off many false or suboptimal directions of research.
One old idea in this Forum has been to comprise such a reference for which I suggested a fashionable title VMBOK (Voynich Manuscript Body of Knowledge). The You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. section of the Forum is dedicated to that task. However, this work requires much effort and dedication, not only from the mods team but also from the community, and time proved it not very popular, the section is dormant. Maybe the idea was not that good after all.
In general, I highly recommend to take time to browse our Forum and participate in discussions
prior to publishing anything about the VMS. As of now, it looks like it's the other way around: the authors publish something, then, in the process of searching for mentions of their article on the net, they discover our Forum (which of course is the first to discuss what they have written), and then they join it to discuss and defend their results.