Quote:I have never seen that discussing any of the above theories brings anything.
I struggle with this in a general sense.
On the one hand, the proliferation of nonsensical theories starves potentially fruitful theories of oxygen. So, it makes sense to focus efforts entirely on what's fruitful.
On the other hand, when experts ignore this proliferation, the entire field suffers due to broad acceptance of nonsensical theories by the "lay public" depending on which of the theories seizes the popular imagination.
In my other research, I find myself drifting away from analyzing claims by specific people, and more towards highlighting the common mistakes shared by them. It is challenging, though, because any question lacking a solid answer is a vacuum that attracts endless speculations that few people feel disqualified to offer. 
It seems every field of study is plagued by this problem. Here's a good example: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(24-08-2020, 04:24 PM)doranchak Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:I have never seen that discussing any of the above theories brings anything.
I struggle with this in a general sense.
On the one hand, the proliferation of nonsensical theories starves potentially fruitful theories of oxygen. So, it makes sense to focus efforts entirely on what's fruitful.
On the other hand, when experts ignore this proliferation, the entire field suffers due to broad acceptance of nonsensical theories by the "lay public" depending on which of the theories seizes the popular imagination.
In my other research, I find myself drifting away from analyzing claims by specific people, and more towards highlighting the common mistakes shared by them. It is challenging, though, because any question lacking a solid answer is a vacuum that attracts endless speculations that few people feel disqualified to offer.
I think the difficulty can be as to who is to judge which is fruitful or nonsensical. Technically almost all Voynich researchers constitute the "lay public" as almost all researchers do not study the Voynich as a profession whether they be computer programmers, engineers or whatever. I think one of the biggest reasons why there are not professional experts on the Voynich is that it is unclear who should rightly be appointed to such an academic post as a critical mass of generally accepted knowledge on the subject has not yet been reached. So knowing who would be qualified to be, for example, a Professor of Voynich Studies at Harvard University is really near impossible; could it be "Gordon Rugg", "Nick Pelling", "Torsten Timm" etc.
But "Voynich Studies" is not really a discipline, is it?
(24-08-2020, 04:45 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (24-08-2020, 04:19 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
I know from your statements that you have not done so as you have said that at most 20% can be matched. Whether someone else has done so it is true I can't say, there may be someone out there who I have never met nor heard of. I haven't kept all of my efforts to myself.
Do you know of anyone who claims to have done systematic small to large plant matching?
No, that is not what I said. That is also not what I implied. And it's incorrect to assume I "have not done so" since you misremembered what I said.
This is exactly what I said on January 21, 2020 11:34 pm, "You won’t be able to match up all the plants." I also said, "If you get 20% matches, you are doing well."
That does not mean "at most 20% can be matched". It means it's a difficult task and getting 20% (or more) is an achievement.
You do not know what percentage I have matched (or others). It might be less than 20%, it might be more than 20%. Similarly, we do not know how many you have matched since you have not published anything.
Numerous times you have compared your unpublished efforts against other people's unpublished efforts. You don't know what they have done any more than they know what you have done.
So then what percentage do you think you have matched?
I would say that I have matched between 40% and 45%.
(24-08-2020, 05:01 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But "Voynich Studies" is not really a discipline, is it?
I agree, but nobody would be appointed to an academic post now on the basis of their knowledge of the Voynich manuscript as nobody knows enough to merit that. If someone has deciphered the manuscript I would think such an academic opening would exist.
Dear ReneZ:
I felt a little offended to see myself in that list of convicts, especially since you've never come to discuss my ideas and I have always talked about you with the utmost respect.
Besides, what do I gain from my theory? Nothing. Many people write books, magazine articles, make videos, etc. They are trying to gain something: money, prestige, a name in their professional career, whatever. I only present my theory here. Apart from the members of this forum, the only people in the world who know it are my wife, my children and some friends.
You won't deny me ReneZ that your case is very special. You are a world celebrity in the Voynich research without having any theory after so many years. So you will never be wrong.
I beg you, as you have done so far, continue to ignore me because your great influence may dissuade someone from reading me. And who knows where the truth is?
(24-08-2020, 05:03 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If someone has deciphered the manuscript I would think such an academic opening would exist.
Once the VM is decrypted, do we still need an expert? Then it is just a book like many others.
(24-08-2020, 06:27 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Dear ReneZ:
I felt a little offended to see myself in that list of convicts, especially since you've never come to discuss my ideas and I have always talked about you with the utmost respect.
Apart from the members of this forum, the only people in the world who know it are my wife, my children and some friends.
You won't deny me ReneZ that your case is very special. You are a world celebrity in the Voynich research without having any theory after so many years. So you will never be wrong.
My experience is that Rene has advanced very few theories though those that I am aware of seem half-baked at best. It is certainly true that he has compiled some interesting research on his website in particular some of the statistical research that has been done, though I believe this is largely other people's research that has been compiled, not his own. In addition I believe he put in considerable effort in developing the EVA system, though some might debate the strengths and weaknesses of it, but either way it has created a widely used common form of representation. In my own research I have found Rene a mixture of helpful and unhelpful, the proportion of which it is hard to say, but both have been significant.
Certainly Rene has attracted some celebrity in the Voynich world just as have Gerard Cheshire, the Ardic family and some others. Though I am inclined to the view that celebrity in the field so far seems to have no obvious relationship to expertise.
Quote:
And who knows where the truth is?
That is my perspective that objectively at this time we have no clear basis for saying who is an expert and who is not.
Antonio, I have no idea about how much truth there is in your theory as I have no knowledge of it and frankly there are so many theories out there that unless I see a compelling reason to study it I probably won't any time soon. So ultimately you have to rely primarily on your judgement.
I have lines of research that I pursue and that side questions I address on the forum or Nick Pelling's blog. I think there is just a case for us all to plough on with our research if we believe that is productive. If someone has really made a major breakthrough I think with time it will be apparent.
Though I think at this stage having gatekeepers on this subject is a bad idea when the gatekeeper has limited eyesight so as to make it difficult to decide who should be admitted and who not.
I do however understand the annoyance of people, Rene or anyone, who feels that they are expected to evaluate every new theory that comes along when there are so many. I don't think Rene should be expected to consider every new theory or expected to be the correct arbiter of any theory. I think if anyone proposes a theory they should be directed to the Voynich Ninja Forum and explained how it to post it there where people can read it if they want to or not.
(24-08-2020, 06:27 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Dear ReneZ:
I felt a little offended to see myself in that list of convicts
That's exactly what I anticipated when seeing this thread, so I beg the participants to this discussion to abstain from delving into further personal showdown.
(24-08-2020, 06:31 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (24-08-2020, 05:03 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If someone has deciphered the manuscript I would think such an academic opening would exist.
Once the VM is decrypted, do we still need an expert? Then it is just a book like many others.
Whether we "need" an expert then we will be much better placed to decide who is an expert.