The Voynich Ninja

As an example, if an individual has a theory as to how the text may have been generated then of course this is not part of the data gathering process. However should we consider that individual unable to objectively comment on other ideas as to how the text was generated. Likewise if this individual has theories about other aspects of the Voynich should we consider that individual unable to objectively comment on theories that differ from their own?

As regards the purpose of this thread if an individual feels that this thread which was clearly stated to refer to so called first category "solutions" should in fact be also devoted to so called second category "solutions" then I think it best advised that they create a separate thread for that purpose.

(15-12-2021, 05:43 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As an example, if an individual has a theory as to how the text may have been generated then of course this is not part of the data gathering process. However should we consider that individual unable to objectively comment on other ideas as to how the text was generated. Likewise if this individual has theories about other aspects of the Voynich should we consider that individual unable to objectively comment on theories that differ from their own?

From what I've seen, I doubt anyone here would answer "yes" to either question, unless maybe to argue that true objectivity is never possible under any circumstances.

By putting quotation marks around the word "solutions" --

(14-12-2021, 04:32 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Voynich "solutions" can be subdivided into two distinct groups [...] Criticizing such "solutions" - from either category - should not be done by people who are actually involved themselves in developing such "solutions".  [...] This can only be done by people [...] who are fully aware that we are, after all this time, still in the "data gathering" stage.

-- René signals that he's writing only about "so-called" solutions which have the distinctive characteristics laid out earlier in this thread.  One of those characteristics is a commitment to some claim that seems out of proportion to the evidence for it, such that the "development" of the "solution" becomes less about inquiry or testing and more about promotion, defense, and augmentation.

It might seem self-evident that someone who's already so committed to one "solution" can't offer a productive perspective on other "solutions."

But the attempt might actually be interesting to see, and I'm not sure I agree that the people involved shouldn't try.  Maybe the problem is precisely that they don't.  (Simply saying "I know I'm right, so you're wrong" doesn't count, following Monty Python You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. around the 1:00 mark.) 

Is there any example out there of a commentary presented by a devoted proponent of one VM language identification on the case made for a different VM language identification?  For example: "Cheshire claims the VM is written in Ischian Proto-Romance, but after reviewing his evidence and reasoning, I'll explain why I consider my hypothesis that it's written in an otherwise unattested medieval descendant of Sumerian to be demonstrably stronger."  I don't think I've seen anything like that, although I haven't gone out of my way to look.

Nor would this have to be confrontational.  Wouldn't we welcome a paper entitled "The Turkish and Slovenian Identifications of the Language of the Voynich Manuscript: A Dialog and Comparative Analysis," co-authored by Ahmet Ardiç and Cvetka Kocjancic?  (I cite these two individuals only as proponents of specific, mutually contradictory language identifications and don't mean to imply any other judgment on their work as such.)

I don't see any sharp distinction between gathering data and formulating or testing hypotheses.  People need some basis for making decisions about what data to gather, after all.  But I'm not sure what we'd call the next phase -- the one we're not at yet.  If the idea is that some people have jumped into it prematurely, maybe "implementation"?

(15-12-2021, 03:01 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't see any sharp distinction between gathering data and formulating or testing hypotheses.  People need some basis for making decisions about what data to gather, after all.

That's precisely the way I see it and what it seems we all do in practice anyway.

Another thing in Monty Python is the 'Getting Hit on the Head' lesson. It's about getting the right tone to "WWAAUUGGHH!!

Individuals are idiosyncratic. And VMs interests are in an isolated corner of idiosyncratic. Some individuals have claimed / are claiming / will claim to be able to read the VMs text. What to do? Implementation <exactly>. Put the methodology to the test, both as to how it works and as to what it produces. If the VMs can be read, read it! Not all of it, perhaps, but at least a page or two, and the outer ring of White Aries.

Implement a new classification for proposed VMs solutions: those that have passed the ninja challenge.

Another skit in Monty Python was the "Getting Hit on the Head" lesson. It's about getting the right tone for "WWAAUUGGHH!!"

Individuals are idiosyncratic. And VMs interests are in an isolated corner of idiosyncratic. And still there are a range of interpretations from scientific to fantastic. Individuals have claimed / are claiming / will claim to be able to read the VMs text. What to do? Implementation <exactly>. Demonstrate the solution methodology both as to how it works and as to what it produces. If the VMs can be read, read it! Not all of it at once, perhaps, but at least a page or two, and the outer ring of White Aries.

Implement a new classification of proposed VMs solutions: those that have passed the ninja challenge. There needs to be a way to get beyond self-selection (self-promotion) to a more objective form of verification.

(15-12-2021, 03:01 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is there any example out there of a commentary presented by a devoted proponent of one VM language identification on the case made for a different VM language identification?

I have seen such cases, not necessarily related to the language.

It can be exemplified (trivially) as follows:

Theorist: It was written by Mr.X

Answer 1: That's wrong because [I think that] it was written by Mr.Y
Answer 2: That's wrong because he lived in the wrong century.

The phrase [ I think that ] is one of the most omitted phrases in all of these discussions.
Obviously, the rejection in answer 1 is not stronger than the original statement, and cannot overthrow it.

Most evidence overthrowing proposed text solutions is not even understood by the challenged proponent, because they never bothered to read up on the earlier work.

Apologies for all the generalisations.

(15-12-2021, 07:05 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Implement a new classification for proposed VMs solutions: those that have passed the ninja challenge.

I had an idea for a vlog or YouTube channel modeled after Shark Tank (with a bit of Gordon Ramsay and Judge Judy), where each theorist has ten minutes to pitch their VMs theory to a panel of VMs researchers with skeptical minds and sharp tongues, who then try as hard and as entertainingly as they can to poke holes in the theory. Like the three shows I just mentioned, this would be mostly humiliation porn — people would watch it in order to see fools get put in their place, whilst trying not to cry or get angry while their beautiful brainchild gets torn apart. If at least one of the Voynich Sharks thinks the theory has enough merit to be worth exploring further, they win a brainstorming session with an expert, who gives them suggestions for what direction to take their research, and whom to approach with it.

You never know, a show like this might even get someone to come forward who has the solution, or at the very least has access to artifacts and sources of information that provide valuable clues.

I wouldn't go on a show like this as a contestant, for the same reason I don't float the wild theories that come to my imagination here on Voynich.ninja: I'm way too sensitive to sign up for the sort of dressing-down that Rene, Marco, and David regularly dish out here to flimsy theory presenters. But that's just me and my temperament; I suspect a lot of VMs theorists would not be so deterred.

I'd sign up for that. Though in all seriousness, I'd need the participants to be screened for mental stability first. One thing is confronting people with their bad science, another is making fun of the disabled...

A good name for this show: “So You Think You Can Read This Book?”