The Voynich Ninja

One encouraging quote in Gerard's reply to me is the following:

"I might be entirely wrong, as it is only a 'theory' among many other theories."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- if you have a cryptographic or linguistic theory about the Mss., deciphering/translating should be the last step in your process, not the first. The problem isn't hypothesizing an otherwise unattested transitional dialect; the problem is thinking that, having hypothesized that, the right next step is groping around for "similar" words and "translating" the manuscript. There's a reason David can roam around talking in PIE in _Prometheus_; if you think the Mss is in such a transitional dialect, then the correct next step is to wrangle one or more expert linguists and ask them to reconstruct what it would look like. Having done that, then you test your hypothesis against the manuscript.

(23-01-2022, 10:05 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One encouraging quote in Gerard's reply to me is the following:

"I might be entirely wrong, as it is only a 'theory' among many other theories."

That is indeed an encouraging statement. Perhaps this ( new ) doubt will allow Cheshire to find a new  and better approach to the VMS, if not immediately then in the near future. Provided he is still interested in the VMS then.

(20-01-2022, 06:14 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would be curious as to how the "Academia Letters" process of peer-review works in practice. This is not a normal journal, but rather a spin-off of the academia.edu website. So it may be misleading to present it as being in a peer-reviewed journal.

Here's an invitation I received from Academia Letters to review a different article, which gives some sense of the gauntlet submissions need to pass through in order to be accepted:

Quote:Dear Patrick,

We reach out to members of the community to see if they’re able and qualified to peer review submissions based on their activity on the site.

We'd like to invite you to review the below submission for publication in Academia Letters, a new open access publishing initiative by Academia.edu.

[Title and details of submission given here]

You've written on related topics in [...], so we think you'd be qualified to review this submission.

As we aim to enable lightning fast publication, reviews for this article are open for the next five calendar days. Positive reviews will be publicly visible, along with the reviewer's name. Critical reviews will be shared anonymously with just the author.

If you're unable or not interested in reviewing this article, ignore this email.

The names and comments of four peer reviewers of the Cheshire paper can be viewed on the same page where the paper itself is hosted.  Only one reviewer, with a background in computational linguistics, has taken the time to write more than just a few lines.  He observes that Cheshire's "2019 paper sounds too certain of its conclusions to be scientifically valid (this may be due to the writing style of the author), this [new] text may be the opportunity to provide objective proof for whatever is stated in the original article."  He recommends it for publication but urges that it be expanded with a validation protocol "to provide proof that the translation given is indeed the correct one."  The other three reviews are far shorter but were written by a linguist in Ukraine; a "language enthusiast" in Indonesia; and a "semi-retired business executive" who co-authored the paper previously discussed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  I'll quote the shortest of the three reviews in full as an example (ellipsis in original): "This paper questioned and argued the incompatibility of the creation of letter to represent our languages... This paper is good reading and gives us new prespective."

I suppose I should point out the following:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It funny how we humans can seem unable to let our incorrect theories go. I guess it is down to loss aversion. We find it hard to admit that we wasted a lot of time on something and to admit to ourselves that what we saw as a triumph was in fact a failure.

Of course, someone could say to me, “Well that could apply to you and your theory”. Ultimately it is left for me to judge whether that is the case or not for my own theory about the Voynich Manuscript. For the time being I, also, am sticking to my guns. I guess time will tell who was right to stand by their ideas and who was mistaken.

I would say that not having heard anything from Gerard I thought/hoped he had given up on his Voynich theory and so was disappointed to see this book.

It seems to be self-published, which means no peer review. No bibliography, no footnotes, so even if anyone wanted to follow up on any of this, there's no obvious way to do so, and readers have no choice but to simply accept or reject him at his word.

I just read through a bit of it, and while it might be entertaining as fiction (his interpretation of the Rose foldout is kind of creative and one might even say fun), he continues to provide only his own self-fulfilling "translation" of the text and reading of the imagery. His insistance that he's correct isn't sufficient proof and, as ever, if you follow the trail of publications back to the beginning and examine his first steps, it all falls apart. Perhaps that's why he doesn't cite any previous work, even his own.

(20-05-2023, 02:07 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.no peer review and readers have no choice but to simply accept or reject him at his word.

Well, someone is welcome to leave a review on Google Books. It appears that it is not necessary to purchase it in order to leave a review. I don't know if that is a good idea or not. It could save someone wasting £20.00 purchasing the E-Book. Then again it might antagonise Gerard. Having said that it is probably right that someone provide a critical review of his work there, so that the public knows what the opinion of Voynich researchers is before buying.

(20-05-2023, 02:07 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems to be self-published, which means no peer review. No bibliography, no footnotes, so even if anyone wanted to follow up on any of this, there's no obvious way to do so, and readers have no choice but to simply accept or reject him at his word.

Hi, Lisa, can you tell me how I can get a peer review, if nobody even wants to read my Slovenian theory. You might say, get Slovenian linguists, but those whose opinion counts most don't want to invest their time to give me an opinion; they urge me to get a peer review from the Voynich community first. After all, they would have to learn a lot about the Voynich Manuscript, and about the Slovenian language between 10th and 15th century,  because there is no material for comparison. And since so many theories written by various academics were rejected, I do not blame them to be careful.

I had not been able to find any member of the Voynich Community that would be interested to review my Slovenian theory, although most members of the Voynich Community believe the  VM was created in the region of Carinthia, Tyrol or Veneto, where Slovenian was widely spoken in the Middle Ages.

 I suppose if I self-publish, or if I get a publishing company to publish, my theory would be rejected on account of not having peer review.

Can  you please help me with this dilema.
Cvetka

(20-05-2023, 03:58 PM)cvetkakocj@rogers.com Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.most members of the Voynich Community believe the VM was created in the region of Carinthia, Tyrol or Veneto

I don't think that is true. Maybe some people believe that it was created in that region. You should take a poll of people if you think that most people believe that.