The Voynich Ninja

Full Version: Writing papers about the Voynich MS
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
If I wanted to write a paper about molecular biology, I better have a relevant degree and I better know the relevant recent publications on this topic.

The same is true for physical geodesy, history of astronomy or pediatric cardiology.
And many other subjects.

You simply cannot expect to publish anything in an area in which you cannot demonstrate prior knowledge.

This is obviously different with the Voynich MS.
New publications (almost always outside the academic world) appear at an amazing rate, and it is exceptional if they demonstrate any attempt from the author(s) to get themselves even basically familiar with the topic.

This is nothing new. I have seen this for 10-15 years now. In the earlier days, people would actually use the excuse that they did this, in order not to be biased and to have an independent view, but nowadays this is simply passed over.

There are a lot of clever people interested in the text statistics of the MS, but how can they be made to look at earlier research, and take lessons from that?
The problem with earlier research is to "separate the wheat from the chaff". There are a handful of well-known researchers in the field of the VMS, but also many researchers who only appear once and deliver a paper on one aspect. The whole thing is unorganized, decentralized and takes place in any forum. I believe that the paediatric cardiologist is involved in a much tighter setting when it comes to research and publication. What would help the VMS researcher who is thinking about publishing would be a guideline for research (which former and actual researchers are relevant? Which papers should one have read thoroughly? ).
Elegant Enigma should be a 100% precondition, but almost nobody has read it.

voynich.nu is great, particularly about the life of the manuscript post-Sinapius (which has never really interested me). But few recent 'theorists' seem to have read so much as the front page.

The Curse of the Voynich has a whole ton of other stuff (but few people have read it, and I don't expect this to change any time soon).
(12-08-2020, 04:26 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Elegant Enigma should be a 100% precondition, but almost nobody has read it.

voynich.nu is great, particularly about the life of the manuscript post-Sinapius (which has never really interested me). But few recent 'theorists' seem to have read so much as the front page.

The Curse of the Voynich has a whole ton of other stuff (but few people have read it, and I don't expect this to change any time soon).

To be fair, it is not so easy to obtain a copy of the Curse at the moment, so it is unlikely many more people will read it for the time being.([font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]"[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]A[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]n Elegant Enigm[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]a" [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]is easily downloadable online.) [/font]I am not criticising you for ceasing to sell it, I appreciate that there is a certain amount of hassle doing it. I was very fortunate to be able to buy one of the last copies that you sold. It is a very speculative book, but I don't have a problem with speculation. Also it is really intelligent and interesting speculation and I am not aware of another text on the subject of the Voynich to match it in that. In addition it contains plenty of useful factual information. Like so many things time will decide how on the money you or any of us were in our ideas concerning the manuscript. But frankly I think we would benefit from more intelligent, but speculative books like yours as there appears to be a real dearth of them.

I would also be inclined to think that the Curse would have value to those interested in ciphers, which is your speciality, even for those with no specific interest in the Voynich.
The Curse is what got me interested in the Voynich (not that I spent money on it, I found it in the Welsh hotel library on a wet Sunday afternoon. Sorry! Should I post you a cheque for the cover price? I feel guilty now that I'm addressing the author!)

Seriously, however:
If I wrote a paper about molecular biology, with no background and reputation in the field, I would never get coverage.
In the Voynich, if I am sufficiently estrambolico, I will become world famous.
Sadly, this is because our media today is forced to publish 24/7 and as such is starved of content. It's more a comment upon the reading public than the idiots who write nonsense about our beloved book.
(12-08-2020, 11:17 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Curse is what got me interested in the Voynich (not that I spent money on it, I found it in the Welsh hotel library on a wet Sunday afternoon. Sorry! Should I post you a cheque for the cover price? I feel guilty now that I'm addressing the author!)

Seriously, however:
If I wrote a paper about molecular biology, with no background and reputation in the field, I would never get coverage.
In the Voynich, if I am sufficiently estrambolico, I will become world famous.
Sadly, this is because our media today is forced to publish 24/7 and as such is starved of content. It's more a comment upon the reading public than the idiots who write nonsense about our beloved book.

I think the real truth, unpopular as it is to say to some,  but as I often repeat there is nobody who can be said to be clearly an expert on the manuscript. Yes, some people know quite a lot about the manuscript in terms of details such as its history with regards to Emperor Rudolf etc. I say this as there is no one individual who if all their unproven ideas turned out to be wrong would subsequently be regarded as an expert! Anyone who claims that they only present facts is in my opinion being disingenuous as I have seen everybody present their own hypotheses or theories.

There is so little of real substance that is known about the Voynich manuscript that, unlike molecular biology where a whole body of knowledge underpins it, identifying expertise is uncertain. Now it will be said that we know so much about the Voynich, but really isn't true; it is like saying that we know so much about aliens. Whilst people have written thoughtfully about the likelihood of there being aliens and what we can speculate biochemically about what they might be like, the reality is that we as a society have never knowingly encountered an alien. I have read enough of what other people have written about the manuscript to conclude that it is very easy to overstate the knowledge we have. Of course, we have many statistical results, but whether those are just scratching the surface is hard to say.

So I think the reason why anyone can propel themselves to Voynich celebrity, if only briefly, is that it is much harder to say that someone else, not them, is a real expert on the manuscript.

I want to agree that people researching the Voynich can only benefit from being more widely read on the subject of the Voynich and clearly some people introducing theories have read little to nothing of what is written on the subject and that has inhibited their ability to spot the flaws in their theories.
(12-08-2020, 04:26 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Curse of the Voynich has a whole ton of other stuff (but few people have read it, and I don't expect this to change any time soon).


Is it ever going to be on Kindle?
Kondrak & Hauer reference :Tiltman, Manly, Landini
Knight & Reddy reference: Tiltman,  Stolfi, Landini, Guy, D'Imperio, Currier
Zelinka, Zmeskal, Window & Cai reference: Tiltman, Landini, D'Imperio
The computational science folks would seem to have a basic grasp of previous literature.
Currier really, really should have published something Sad
(13-08-2020, 12:11 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the real truth, unpopular as it is to say to some,  but as I often repeat there is nobody who can be said to be clearly an expert on the manuscript. Yes, some people know quite a lot about the manuscript in terms of details such as its history with regards to Emperor Rudolf etc. I say this as there is no one individual who if all their unproven ideas turned out to be wrong would subsequently be regarded as an expert! Anyone who claims that they only present facts is in my opinion being disingenuous as I have seen everybody present their own hypotheses or theories.

There is so little of real substance that is known about the Voynich manuscript

"truth" (first sentence) and "facts" (fourth sentence) are among the most mis-used words in Voynich writings. If one writes carefully, one finds that one should more often use word like "observations" and "interpretations".

The last sentence "There is so little of real substance that is known about the Voynich manuscript" is wrong, 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.

Essentially all incorrect publications that attracted some fame (and the many that remained obscure) are demonstrably ignoring and violating different bodies of knowledge about the MS.

This is true for the modern fake theory, Janick and Tucker, Hauer and Kondrak, Cheshire, and many others that I am now too lazy to mention.
(12-08-2020, 04:26 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Curse of the Voynich has a whole ton of other stuff (but few people have read it, and I don't expect this to change any time soon).
One more will be reading it soon! There are a few copies available on Amazon where I just placed my order!
Pages: 1 2 3