The Voynich Ninja

(23-11-2024, 04:34 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A better question (to which I do not know the answer) is how we can talk about the imagery without too much speculation.

That is certainly a very important question.

I think speculation has its place, but it needs to be grounded in observables and not become completely detached from anything that one can compare with or check against.

Well, I guess we are in agreement: ideally quantity and quality go hand in hand. But quality isn't measured by quantity. However, there is clearly a great disagreement among researchers about what makes an argument strong when it comes to interpreting these images. Otherwise we wouldn't be in a situation where basically everybody has a different opinion about them.

(23-11-2024, 04:34 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your argument appears to be that a theory becomes stronger if it explains more details.

I suppose I view details like data points. I see the explanation of a detail as a test of the overall theory.

For example, if we take a theory like evolution. If, when confronted with a new animal that I have never seen before, then can I fit that animal into my evolutionary tree, or does the existence of that animal fundamentally contradict my theory? Maybe because it could not have come onto existence through Darwinian evolutionary processes(maybe I discover a kind of flying animal with a propeller) or because it has no discernable relatives amongst any other animal that has been known to exist.

Or if we take a pool table (snooker table) and I say that I can explain and predict the collisions of the balls using newtonian mechanics when I am presented with a new scenario/collision can the theory explain that new scenario.

I am taking examples from science as those are the ones that occur to mind, but I am sure these approaches cross over into social science/history, though the conducting of experiments is more problematic.

Again, a theory which cannot account for most of the data that it claims to explain I think is concerning.

(23-11-2024, 09:47 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Otherwise we wouldn't be in a situation where basically everybody has a different opinion about them.

Yeah, this is a real problem and concerning. If the page was empty or almost empty with little or no detail then we could understand a very wide range of explanations being considered, but there is a lot going on, on this page, so it is troubling that we can have such wide ranging theory types of the page with so little concensus on anything.

Moved to imagery, no longer news.

It is unfortunately a fact that providing more details makes any proposal more susceptible to criticism.
This is just a generic statement, and it is a problem for cases where proposals and their evaluation are important.
In such cases, a minimum of detail will be required, and proposals can be rejected for failing to do that.

When moving (back) into the area of Voynich MS theory proposals, I regularly suspect that some proposals are deliberately kept vague (or completely unknown) just to avoid such criticism.
This last point clearly does not apply to Mark.

(24-11-2024, 12:54 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is unfortunately a fact that providing more details makes any proposal more susceptible to criticism.

In my opinion, it is good that providing more detail makes a theory more susceptible to criticism. A theory should be subject to criticism as much specific criticism as possible. Theories should be challenged at every point and every detail and every argument to see how strong they really are. A theory may on the whole be good, but even then some details may be wrong and need to be correct or challenged. If others don't challenge a theory it is the obligation of the theorist to perform this process of challenge and counter-argument to their own theory.

It is a grueling and painful process having one's theory criticised, but it is precisely necessary to do so.

So I would reiterate that in my opinion:

It is "fortunately" a fact that providing more details makes any proposal more susceptible to criticism.

(24-11-2024, 12:54 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When moving (back) into the area of Voynich MS theory proposals, I regularly suspect that some proposals are deliberately kept vague (or completely unknown) just to avoid such criticism.

In some cases keeping your Voynich manuscript theory vague is a way to shield oneself from criticism. I think normally people tend to just ignore details they can't explain. Or sometimes they don't explain the details as they simply haven't even noticed them.

Sometimes it can reflect a kind of laziness as it is much easier to start a theory than try to follow it to its logical conclusion. This "laziness" is perfectly acceptable on a personal level as people have limited time and busy lives and more important things to worry about than the Voynich manuscript, but on the level of theories it is a problem.

I would like to think of myself as an imaginative person. However, I don't think that I possess enough imagination of the details to come up with an explanation that would fit any theory in a way that I could find credible.

I am quite happy to piggyback on other people's ideas. I was not the first person to suggest the page was a map. And I borrowed from Nick Pelling's theory in quite a few respects.

---

In many ways I have sought out an explanation that challenges my imagination as little as possible. I think a "map" interpretation of the page makes it easier to explain many of the details without having to strain one's imagination too much.

I have tried to also focus on details that I don't have an explanation for or which I cannot think of an explanation that I find satisfactory, so on my annotated page I have even highlighted details that I can't come to an explanation for. Fortunately there aren't too many of these. But let's take for example the objects in the central rosette that identify with "ciboria" or others may refer to as "domes". Why are there 6 of them, 4 at the front and 2 at the back and why are they illustrated differently with the right most object looking most like a ciborium? There are so many things in the universe of possibilities with which the number 6 can be associated which makes identifying a correct interpretation very hard. I suppose there could be 6 merely as the author found it most convenient given the space available to draw only 6.