The Voynich Ninja

(01-02-2025, 06:12 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(I can't believe he still calls the Roman alphabet the Italic alphabet.)

Not to mention 'portfolio'...

Well, at least he is not using ChatGPT. (But ChatGPT will be reading the paper....)

It is kind of interesting that this appeared in the backyard of a well known competing theory....

Oh no.. To be honest, I had assumed he would have stopped calling folios "portfolios" by now. I stand corrected. 

I had also noticed the backyard thing, but I assume it is a coincidence. I can't really think of a way the two would be related.

What competing theory? What do you mean by "backyard"?

I found this article via Google Scholar: I wanted to check if someone cited the "symbol roles revisited" paper, as I was interested in their approach. Two citations came up: the "Gibberish after all?" paper by Gaskell and Bowern and this opus by Cheshire. Which says that Arteoloji Dergisi, while perhaps lacking in peer-review quality, does at least index their bibliographies correctly.

(I wonder if Cheshire's paper has anything else hidden in the reference list, something interesting and not yet discussed here)

EDIT: ah, probably you meant the attempt to read VM as Turkish text. Yes, that's an amusing coincidence.

(03-02-2025, 11:14 PM)bt2901 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.EDIT: ah, probably you meant the attempt to read VM as Turkish text. Yes, that's an amusing coincidence.

Of course.
Ahmet Ardic has always proudly showcased the great support he has in Turkey for his theory.
Now there is local and acknowledged competition.

The moment I initially saw he claimed to have solved the manuscript in 2 weeks through a combination of “ingenuity and lateral thinking”, it was immediately clear to me that the man has mental problems and anything out of his mouth is going to be bogus. Nobody spouts such meme material unironically when sober - and doubles down on it - without having a few screws loose.

When I first started looking at the Italian Manuscript, through some ingenuity and lateral thinking I quickly came to the conclusion that trying to directly decipher it is a fool’s errand, and instead looked into narrowing down the vast solution space through objective analysis.

[attachment=10101]

Hello Rene
I know that there is a time difference to Tailand.
But don't you think a month is a bit excessive? 
Today 4.3.25.

(04-03-2025, 05:46 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I know that there is a time difference to Tailand.
But don't you think a month is a bit excessive? 
Today 4.3.25.

02.04 is February 4th. You can change the date format in User Control Panel -> Edit Options.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(04-03-2025, 01:30 PM)zachary.kaelan Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The moment I initially saw he claimed to have solved the manuscript in 2 weeks through a combination of “ingenuity and lateral thinking”, it was immediately clear to me that the man has mental problems and anything out of his mouth is going to be bogus. Nobody spouts such meme material unironically when sober - and doubles down on it - without having a few screws loose.

I'm not so sure.  There's only one solution (not posted on this forum, and I won't link to it for the following reason) where I have found myself seriously wondering if the solver had a mental illness, and it was due to their explanation sounding like the way a paranoid schizophrenic might reason, not due to their grandiose claims of being the next Michael Ventris or Champollion.  

Most solvers likely come up with their system in a very short time like Cheshire, even if some may then spend longer refining it.  And most seem to take it for granted that they would have the genius insight that has eluded so many qualified people for decades, or at least they don't seem to question it or ascribe it to luck and hard work when presenting their solution.  He's definitely not the only one to proudly declare they would avoid reading any existing work on the manuscript so as to keep one's creative mind free of influence.

I think he just stands out because he boasts about his achievement and because of the unpleasant way he's behaved to some of the forum members and others.  So I don't think he necessarily has a few screws loose - it's just a particularly unfortunate combination of the Dunning Kruger effect, confirmation bias, and an ego that can't even seem to acknowledge and correct mistakes like "portfolio".

(04-03-2025, 10:38 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think he just stands out because he boasts about his achievement and because of the unpleasant way he's behaved to some of the forum members and others.  So I don't think he necessarily has a few screws loose - it's just a particularly unfortunate combination of the Dunning Kruger effect, confirmation bias, and an ego that can't even seem to acknowledge and correct mistakes like "portfolio".

Dunning-Kruger and confirmation bias are common, they aren’t what I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is Cheshire pretty much outright saying that past attempts failed due to lacking the “intuitive genius” he has. I’m talking about narcissistic personality disorder or something similar.

Quote:Hi Koen,
Many thanks for your reply - I feel bad that you have invested so much time and effort, as I am entirely certain the solution is correct. I have conducted hundreds of experiments and every one has generated a positive outcome. The marker words demonstrate objective proof, so we know that the other words are correct even if they have yet to be located and defined. It's simple scientific logic. 

I might add also, that various linguistics experts have begun to verify the work. I am not at all interested in the 'Voynich code' element, as that is entirely trivial, yet overblown in the minds of enthusiasts. That is why I have not used that word in the paper. 

What is important is the linguistic and semiotic discovery, as that is what it gives to science. Perhaps you would like to participate by contributing to the lexicon. The science is all that matters. 

Kindest regards,
Gerard.

That isn't normal bias.

Could be, but I generally discourage forum members from diagnosing others - we are not psychiatrists and the person in question did not seek our assessment of their mental state.

I do agree, however, that Cheshire is extremely committed to ignoring all criticism and advice. Luckily his nonsense doesn't make headlines anymore.