The Voynich Ninja

"Read This Or The Puppy Dies"

It started out reasonably well, but they lost their way a bit in Series 6.

(16-12-2021, 08:06 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(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. ...

It's a great idea but it takes a LOT of time and skill to run a successful YT Channel, about 8 hours just to edit a single video for a start.Then you need a host of supporters and donors, moderators and researchers behind the scenes. I doubt if many Ninjas would take the necessary time away from their research but I may be wrong.

Still, I would love to see this!

Oof DONJCH, I'll not speak for anyone else, but that's a whooooooooole different skill set than the one life bequeathed me. I might develop it into a short story, though. And if I do, I'll post it here.

Hey don't let me stop you, there's no reason you couldn't do it as a one off.

(15-12-2021, 03:01 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(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"?

I don't understand the point of trying to discern the language or "testing" theories of the language, without theories of the historical context explaining why that language would have been used.

(07-12-2021, 07:14 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think often people start with an idea for a language they think the Voynich might be written, because it is a language they have interest in.

They probably take a few words they have an idea for a crib from and then assign Voynich symbols accordingly. Then to make the other words fit they fall back on variable spelling, arbitrary spacing, no grammar(word salad), various related languages/dialects, words that vaguely plausibly could be consistent with the pictures we see in the Voynich and limited selective text translations. All together these provide the degrees of freedom necessary to make a theory fit.

Now they may arrive at their primary language of choice directly from their crib or from some similarity to symbols from another language. The likelihood that they crib words are correct is most likely high debatable and so their assignment of symbols.

Obviously there are variations on this method and other degrees of freedom like anagrams.

Agreed. The proper approach is to first determine the historical context of VM production. I don't see that anyone has yet done that.

(06-03-2022, 07:07 AM)GeoffreySea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The proper approach is to first determine the historical context of VM production. I don't see that anyone has yet done that.

I wouldn't say that. Instead there are plenty more or less elaborate proposed contexts.

The clearest example is perhaps in the work of Arthur Tucker and Jules Janick who have filled two Springer volumes with an elaboration how the historical context of the Voynich MS is Mesoamerica.

Diane O'Donovan has spent years, and filled several blogs (now all hidden or deleted) creating several non-European contexts based on the illustrations. These included East Asia, a Black Sea culture and also North Africa.

Even the work of Gerard Cheshire, while it concentrates mainly on the text, comes with a historical context centred around the island of Ischia.

A retired American, who does not communicate on the internet, places the creation of the MS in a German group of lesbian nuns, and sees a magical content. No translation at all.

With a bit of effort, several additional examples can be found and listed.

And then there is the general, almost mainstream, idea that this is the work of one or several people in central Europe (which includes modern N.Italy), at the start of the 15th Century. It proposes that the creator(s) must have been quite familiar with medicinal, astrological and cosmological works of his time.

This means that proposing a historical context will initially be adding one more to the list.

Until it has been published, it cannot be checked how much more convincing it is than the existing ones.

(06-03-2022, 09:15 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-03-2022, 07:07 AM)GeoffreySea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The proper approach is to first determine the historical context of VM production. I don't see that anyone has yet done that.

I wouldn't say that. Instead there are plenty more or less elaborate proposed contexts.

The clearest example is perhaps in the work of Arthur Tucker and Jules Janick who have filled two Springer volumes with an elaboration how the historical context of the Voynich MS is Mesoamerica.

Diane O'Donovan has spent years, and filled several blogs (now all hidden or deleted) creating several non-European contexts based on the illustrations. These included East Asia, a Black Sea culture and also North Africa.

Even the work of Gerard Cheshire, while it concentrates mainly on the text, comes with a historical context centred around the island of Ischia.

A retired American, who does not communicate on the internet, places the creation of the MS in a German group of lesbian nuns, and sees a magical content. No translation at all.

With a bit of effort, several additional examples can be found and listed.

And then there is the general, almost mainstream, idea that this is the work of one or several people in central Europe (which includes modern N.Italy), at the start of the 15th Century. It proposes that the creator(s) must have been quite familiar with medicinal, astrological and cosmological works of his time.

This means that proposing a historical context will initially be adding one more to the list.

Until it has been published, it cannot be checked how much more convincing it is than the existing ones.

All of those proposals involve a wrong historical context. The correct historical context is inherent in the work. It appears that people are more interested in looking at clouds and imagining what they see.

(06-03-2022, 01:07 PM)GeoffreySea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.All of those proposals involve a wrong historical context. The correct historical context is inherent in the work.

Many of the others with theories about historical context would say the same thing about your proposal.  Stating that others are wrong and your theory is right does not differentiate yours from the pack: it makes it blend in.

(06-03-2022, 01:07 PM)GeoffreySea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-03-2022, 09:15 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[...] there are plenty more or less elaborate proposed contexts.
[...]

And then there is the general, almost mainstream, idea that this is the work of one or several people in central Europe (which includes modern N.Italy), at the start of the 15th Century. It proposes that the creator(s) must have been quite familiar with medicinal, astrological and cosmological works of his time.



This means that proposing a historical context will initially be adding one more to the list.



Until it has been published, it cannot be checked how much more convincing it is than the existing ones.

All of those proposals involve a wrong historical context. The correct historical context is inherent in the work. It appears that people are more interested in looking at clouds and imagining what they see.

This is easy to say, and not unexpected. However, there should be some evidence to back it up.

Now I do agree that all of the proposals that I listed in my post cannot be supported, with the major exception of one that I left included above.

Calling this mainstream or general context wrong, is clearly based on having a different view.
This emphasizes my earlier point in this thread that people having a set hypothesis/view about the MS are not capable of judging Voynich MS solutions or theories in a proper neutral way.

The last line of my earlier message says it all. Many contexts have been proposed, with their justifications. They could be wrong. Who knows. But making a new proposal just adds one more to the list.
And most importantly: this new proposal has not really been made yet. The others have.