Discussion of Voynich theories with their proponents is, from my experience, a fruitless and generally pointless way to spend one's time.
Let me just present a shortlist that can be used to clarify this point.
Rich Santacoloma is strongly convinced that the Voynich MS is a modern fake by Voynich. He has been challenged for more than 6 years by now, without any visible effect. This is the one case on which I spent more time discussing than any other, well before the Voynich Ninja forum existed, and I have decided that that has been enough.
Tucker and Jannick are strongly convinced that the Voynich MS was written in the 16th century in Central America. I have had many exchanges with one of them, all very friendly, but without any impact.
Gerard Cheshire is convinced of his proto-italic theory. All discussions with him have been fruitless.
Jutta Kellner is not generally known in the various Voynich fora, but she is well known to the Beinecke, and she is as convinced of her theory as all the others in this list.
Giuseppe Bianchi is even better known to the Beinecke (in a negative way) but he is really an OK guy. His views about the MS cannot be changed.
Most of these are not (actively) present in the Voynich Ninja forum. Some that are include:
Morten St. George and his Nostradamus theory (one of the longest threads ever).
Antonio Jimenez Garcia, another very long thread and again someone who will not revise his opinion
Torsten Timm, very active in this forum and with many interesting statistics, none of which demonstrate his theory, and he is as resistant to changing his opinion as anyone else in this list.
Everyone can decide what he wants to spend his/her time on, and this is also what I do.
I have never seen that discussing any of the above theories brings anything.
Of course, all of them will argue that they are right and all the others are wrong, and it is unfair to throw their work into the same pot as these invalid theories, but that is irrelevant. It is a matter of what people interested in the Voynich MS prefer to spend their time on, and for me forum discussions have moved down the priority list very considerably.
Well Rene, for each of the examples you cite above - and I stress that everybody has the right to their "own" theory, and to defend it - I'm sure there are dozens of times you have influenced and helped people with your comments and feedback.
The mere fact that so many theories exist is what's so fascinating about the Voynich. Neither you nor I profess to know "the truth" and nobody can be forced to turn away from their own theory. But by critiquing and debating theories online, other people learn more and can make up their own minds, whether it be for or against the theory under debate.
So, no, forum discussion isn't "a fruitless and generally pointless way to spend one's time". It's a way to help uncover the truth. So often in life we hope to have a huge impact, but in reality, our impact is measured in lots of little drips, not big floods. However, lots of little drips can make the most impressive of stalagmites!
David, my point is really more about constructive vs. not-at-all constructive discussions.
Yes, there are fortunately still plenty of discussions here that are both collaborative and constructive.
So, forum discussions in general are not "fruitless and generally pointless" but most of the trench battles about specific theories are.
However, the Voynich Ninja forum is only one speck in the Voynich MS landscape.
Edit / addition:
Quote:I'm sure there are dozens of times you have influenced and helped people with your comments and feedback.
I'm sorry to be frank, but that is not how it is.
The Voynich amateur world consists to a very large extent of people who think they know everything better. Even if they found out about the MS five yeas ago, six months or two weeks. Most of these people are not *at all* receptive of any type of advice.
They just say: well you don't know the answer (like you just did, David), so why should listen to you. (I know you did not say that :-) ).
Fortunately, I know some very good counter-examples!
However, there is also a lot of interesting work going on outside the various fora.
(Apart from the presidential project
)
(24-08-2020, 01:07 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Voynich amateur world consists to a very large extent of people who think they know everything better. Even if they found out about the MS five years ago, six months or two weeks. Most of these people are not *at all* receptive of any type of advice.
They just say: well you don't know the answer (like you just did, David), so why should listen to you.
I think there is a case for turning that lens inwards and looking at ones own research in the way that one looks at others.
That is why I am dubious about the notion that we can say that there are experts on the Voynich whether they have studied the manuscript for a week, 5 years or 25 years. I prefer to let time eventually decide who was right and who was wrong about different ideas. When time will reach that conclusion I cannot say.
I don't think I can reasonably claim to be an expert on the Voynich as my ideas have not been proven/disproven and I think others should be wary of doing so either. There is a saying in English "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones", which I think we would all do with bearing in mind.
I do agree that analysing the theories of others is often not a productive use of one's time, which is why I don't spend much time doing so. I have projects that I am continually engaged in, whether it be building up a large collection of pre-1447 cipher keys or systematically matching small plants to large plants in an extent that has not nearly been done before or making contacts with experts on medieval maps to discuss the rosettes foldout.
I guess that Rene as the leading Voynich researcher is naturally one of the first persons to whom proponents of various Voynich theories apply in order to know his opinion. And when those proponents are not happy with his feedback, that can be annoying. Indeed, when you take time to consider one's theory and provide some critique, and then you are told that your critique is crap, that's quite annoying. I'm not meaning anybody in person, just generalizing. Self-criticism is a critically important trait for a researcher, which unfortunately not everybody possesses.
That happens on a large scale in sensitive fields like history, economics or politics. One can be surprised how much of what I'd call sectarianism is spread there and how little people are willing to admit plain facts, just ignoring them quite like a Russian court would ignore the existence of laws.
Willingness to defend one's theory is a good thing. Inability to see and admit its weak points is a bad one.
As a person who is not applied too often with one's Voynich theories, I'm quite OK with their existence. I must confess I'm even not aware of many of them because in the recent years I just don't have time to read all threads.
However, I would not like this discussion to turn towards discussing this or that proponent and be somewhat personal-aimed or ad hominem. Even if Mr or Ms X does not want to change their opinion, it's their right after all. With this they are not deciding one's fate or something (in contrast to a court), so it's not that critical.
(24-08-2020, 03:38 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.systematically matching small plants to large plants in an extent that has not nearly been done before
As a sidenote, that has been done by Wladimir, although I don't know the extent to which he advanced.
(24-08-2020, 03:42 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (24-08-2020, 03:38 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.systematically matching small plants to large plants in an extent that has not nearly been done before
As a sidenote, that has been done by Wladimir, although I don't know the extent to which he advanced.
Yes, that has been done to a small extent by Wladimir and others, but not systematically or completely by anyone. Sadly I think that is true in my experience about many aspects of Voynich research.
Rene, buddy, you sound depressed. Cheer up, and remember it's not up to you to convince other people! The sensible will pick and choose - and who cares about the non-sensible?
(24-08-2020, 03:47 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (24-08-2020, 03:42 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (24-08-2020, 03:38 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.systematically matching small plants to large plants in an extent that has not nearly been done before
As a sidenote, that has been done by Wladimir, although I don't know the extent to which he advanced.
Yes, that has been done to a small extent by Wladimir and others, but not systematically or completely by anyone. Sadly I think that is true in my experience about many aspects of Voynich research.
Mark, you do not know what has been done. You can only speak to what has been published, and those studies are equal to yours since yours has not been published either.
(24-08-2020, 04:12 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (24-08-2020, 03:47 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (24-08-2020, 03:42 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (24-08-2020, 03:38 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.systematically matching small plants to large plants in an extent that has not nearly been done before
As a sidenote, that has been done by Wladimir, although I don't know the extent to which he advanced.
Yes, that has been done to a small extent by Wladimir and others, but not systematically or completely by anyone. Sadly I think that is true in my experience about many aspects of Voynich research.
Mark, you do not know what has been done. You can only speak to what has been published, and those studies are equal to yours since yours has not been published either.
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?