One thing that I have felt problematic for some time is the lack of specialisation of most people undertaking Voynich research. It seems to me that most people flit from topic to topic, never spending long enough on each topic to make real progress. One day they will be making some statistical analysis of the text and the next day they will be comparing plant images from a herbal of the time with the Voynich and the following day they will theorising about the Rosettes folio and so on.
I think what will help push Voynich research forward is if individuals select a topic to pursue for some time until they can be said to have really advanced our understanding of the topic. Some people may not find that as "fun" as jumping around topics, but it is likely to be more productive. The Voynich does not need lots of good generalists, but rather a variety of specialists in different aspects of the manuscript with of course some collaboration between them.
I have, myself, adopted that approach, so I am not advocating other people do something that I am not doing myself. There are many subjects relating to the Voynich manuscript that I have never investigated at all and only some which I have researched to some degree. My chief specialism is cryptography from the early 15th century. Though I have also spent some time looking at maps of the period and some time matching botanical pictures to herbal pictures and a bit of time thinking about labels as well as time looking at my own theory. Nevertheless I have barely touched the other aspects of the Voynich, though I have read up and thought about the statistical properties. I know nothing of the astrological drawings, almost nothing of the astronomical drawings, very little about the late history of the manuscript, almost nothing about the marginalia, not much about herbals of the time and so on.
Now there are some people who appear to have specialised in certain aspects of Voynich; my thoughts turn to Lisa Fagin Davis and Claire Bowern.
It also concerns me that when researching the Voynich most people confine themselves only to documents they can find online. This leaves out a large quantity of archival material from their research. I admit that tracking down archival material can be hard work and at times it can cost money, but without doing this Voynich research is sadly limited.
I see a new era of progress in Voynich research being advanced by a group of specialists in different aspects of the manuscript sharing their discoveries between them.
Quote:if individuals select a topic to pursue for some time until they can be said to have really advanced our understanding of the topic
That moment of having really advanced can very often be characterised with the vivid definition of "never", so it's no surprise that people jump from topic to topic. I do. Typically when I think I've spotted something novel I pursue the track until it turns to be either dead end or impenetrable further. Also, quite often I am forced, by current preoccupations or circumstances of other nature, to put it on the back burner. I think that is the case for many people. Hardly anyone is able to live on Voynich research, so it's rather a hobby, and one's dedication to it is unfortunately heavily limited by external circumstance.
(08-10-2022, 10:50 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems to me that most people flit from topic to topic, ....
I would also describe myself as more of a generalist when it comes to Voynich research. I like to jump from topic to topic to have some variety. This always brings new aspects into the hobby. At the same time, I can "sink my teeth" into a topic if there is a possibility that something particularly interesting has been discovered. A real specialization is not my thing because I do something professionally that has nothing remotely to do with the VMS.
Of course, if people prefer to move from topic to topic they are free to do so. Ultimately as a hobby someone can do what they like with their life. My point is that progress in Voynich research would be best served by individuals specialising in specific areas. Now if someone's preference is for their own entertainment rather than advancing research that is OK and they are welcome to it. I am not trying to spoil people's enjoyment.
I can think of many topics that could benefit from in depth research into them. For example, it seems clear to me that nobody has made a concerted effort to track down as many as possible of the surviving herbal manuscripts from the time of the Voynich and from say the proceeding century. Someone so doing could then make a systematic comparison of these manuscripts themselves and also with the Voynich and see where it fits into the pattern. Certainly some work has been done in this area, but clearly significantly more could be done.
(08-10-2022, 06:58 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now if someone's preference is for their own entertainment rather than advancing research that is OK
I would say that entertainment and trying to contribute to research are not mutually exclusive.
(08-10-2022, 07:09 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (08-10-2022, 06:58 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now if someone's preference is for their own entertainment rather than advancing research that is OK
I would say that entertainment and trying to contribute to research are not mutually exclusive.
No, they are not mutually exclusive. However I still contest that specialisation in Voynich research would push research forward and people, like me, can specialise and still do research as a hobby; specialisation is not something only for full-time professionals.
(08-10-2022, 06:58 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can think of many topics that could benefit from in depth research into them. For example, it seems clear to me that nobody has made a concerted effort to track down as many as possible of the surviving herbal manuscripts from the time of the Voynich and from say the proceeding century. Someone so doing could then make a systematic comparison of these manuscripts themselves and also with the Voynich and see where it fits into the pattern. Certainly some work has been done in this area, but clearly significantly more could be done.
When we designed this forum years ago, we had something like that in mind - a concerted effort. Hence the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. initiative. Ultimately, time proved it not very popular.
(08-10-2022, 08:52 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, they are not mutually exclusive. However I still contest that specialisation in Voynich research would push research forward and people, like me, can specialise and still do research as a hobby; specialisation is not something only for full-time professionals.
Effectively you're saying that if people applied their effort more efficiently the Voynich research would benefit. Sounds reasonable, but the fact is that Voynich research is basically a no-commitment endeavour. People do what they like, there's no stimulus for them to change their behaviour.
(08-10-2022, 09:00 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Voynich research is basically a no-commitment endeavour. People do what they like, there's no stimulus for them to change their behaviour.
I suppose it depends on what motivates them. I don't find it unpleasant or irksome to specialise in some areas of Voynich research; I don't find it less enjoyable, in fact I find it more enjoyable as I am working to expand knowledge.
Clearly some focused activity has occurred in the past. I know Koen spent some considerable time and effort focusing on finding image parallels for the figures in the centre of the astrological pages. I can't comment on this work as I know very little about this subject, however my impression is that he achieved something through this focused effort.
Maybe if people become more conscious of the reality that it would help Voynich research more if it were more specialised then it would motivate them to undertake specific focused research projects.
The Voynich manuscript is a large, complex and multifaceted thing, I think for one person to appreciate all aspects of it is very hard.
There are many aspects to this, and in my opinion it's quite complex.
On the one hand, specialisation is useful. If someone spends every day reading up on the same topic, researching this topic, writing about it, teaching about it... They will achieve a level of understanding and proficiency that is hard to reach by a generalist. Therefore, I welcome every specialist opinion on or contribution to the study of the VM.
On the other hand though, the VM is also its own kind of specialty. It offers unique challenges in various fields, that require solutions which may not readily belong to the specialist's toolkit. It is possible that the VM can only be solved through a more wholistic approach, focusing on one aspect but being aware of the others.
Initially I was drawn entirely to the imagery, but I also felt the need to understand the text. I found that I could only do this by venturing well outside of my comfort zone, and also remaining aware that I was outside of my comfort zone. (The thread "Koen needs statistics advice" is probably still one of the larger ones on the forum).
There is another advantage to studying various aspects of the MS. As mentioned, I can really obsess over a small part (like the legs on a lobster, sleeves on a dress, the way two figures hold hands). This is good as preseverance may lead to results. But it can also help to do something completely different for a while (e.g. text statistics) to take some distance from the other subject (imagery) and be able to return to is as if you're somebody else reading it for the first time.
(08-10-2022, 10:59 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are many aspects to this, and in my opinion it's quite complex.
On the one hand, specialisation is useful. If someone spends every day reading up on the same topic, researching this topic, writing about it, teaching about it... They will achieve a level of understanding and proficiency that is hard to reach by a generalist. Therefore, I welcome every specialist opinion on or contribution to the study of the VM.
On the other hand though, the VM is also its own kind of specialty. It offers unique challenges in various fields, that require solutions which may not readily belong to the specialist's toolkit. It is possible that the VM can only be solved through a more wholistic approach, focusing on one aspect but being aware of the others.
Initially I was drawn entirely to the imagery, but I also felt the need to understand the text. I found that I could only do this by venturing well outside of my comfort zone, and also remaining aware that I was outside of my comfort zone. (The thread "Koen needs statistics advice" is probably still one of the larger ones on the forum).
There is another advantage to studying various aspects of the MS. As mentioned, I can really obsess over a small part (like the legs on a lobster, sleeves on a dress, the way two figures hold hands). This is good as preseverance may lead to results. But it can also help to do something completely different for a while (e.g. text statistics) to take some distance from the other subject (imagery) and be able to return to is as if you're somebody else reading it for the first time.
Yes, some general acquaintance with the Voynich manuscript can be useful. However one doesn't even need to have any knowledge or interest in the Voynich manuscript in order to make a significant contribution. For example, developing, a detailed and documented, comprehensive understanding of herbal manuscripts from around the time from which the Voynich dates could help advance Voynich research, without the researcher having any knowledge or interest in the Voynich. Likewise for developing a detailed knowledge of astrological texts of the time. Likewise for developing a detailed knowledge of cosmological texts of the time. Researching early 15th century cryptography in an indepth way has been a lot of work and I have definitely found things out not covered in existing literature. Specialised projects like these could really advance general knowledge. For example, I have studied Medieval Maps quite a bit, however I have not had the time reach the level of expertise in this topic that I would like as I have chosen another topic to specialise in.
Rather than having lots of generalists, we could have a few generalists and also specialists in the following fields:
1) Medieval Herbal manuscripts
2) Medieval Astrological manuscripts
3) Medieval Astronomical/Cosmological manuscripts
4) Medieval Cartography
5) Medieval Cryptography
6) Statistical Linguists(If that is the correct term)I guess Claire Bowern comes under this category.
And so on...
I think this would push Voynich research forward in a big way as collectively we would have an overall greater knowledge to bring to bear. There is an advantage in specialists having an overall basic familiarity with the Voynich.
If the Voynich is not deciphered any time soon I expected this specialisation will emerge naturally, but it could take some time for this to happen