The Voynich Ninja

(18-03-2024, 04:16 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What approach do you recommend should be taken?

That is a good question, with a long answer that probably deserves a whole essay. But very briefly put, I see it as follows.

First, it depends whether we are talking about the text or the images. Let's start with the text. The current consensus among people who understands the statistics behind Voynichese is that it cannot be a one-to-one mapping of a natural language. So a solution there should spend a lot of its initial effort in understanding which kinds of systems could lead to the various unusual properties we see in Voynichese.

Among theories claiming to have found meaning in the manuscript, we see two main categories, depending on the mechanism that drives the solver's confirmation bias:
1) the solver cherry-picks words that fit in their narrative, thus feeding an ever intensifying spiral of confirmation bias. Do not ask these people to translate a full page - they have a range of standard excuses available for why they can't.
2) the solver does translate entire passages, but the translation is not repeatable. For example, there is usually an interpretative step, whereby the solver builds in enough freedom to unknowingly turn the "translation" into a creative writing exercise. Again, these people are the victim of confirmation bias. They fail to notice that the interpretative step allows them to choose what they want the text to be about, and instead they only experience the feeling of success after completing a translation. The result is invariably a string of ungrammatical garbage, but they do not notice this either since they lack proficiency in their chosen ancient language.

So to people working on the text, my advice would be to read up on the statistical oddities of Voynichese and the challenges we are dealing with. Then go to work with these problems. Example from my own experience: in 2020 I got obsessed with Voynichese's notoriously low conditional character entropy, so I did a bunch of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. just about that. Most people seriously working on the text are doing all kinds of tests and analyses like these (though much more capably than mine). The thing to understand with this kind of research is that it does not offer instant solutions. It is more like a little building block that may or may not be used by others. That is how I see our understanding of the text progressing, and how we may one day find a solution, if there is any meaning to the text at all.

Now when it comes to the images, things are more complicated. Sometimes, a picture is all we have, and the art historian needs to interpret certain elements. He will do so with reference to relevant sources though: textual sources, comparable images... With the VM, this part is extremely hard, which may be why art historians tend to shy away from the subject (or remain very brief in their commentary). Usually, papers about Voynich imagery do not pass academic peer review.

Here, too, my personal favorite approach is that of providing smaller, but more certain building blocks. When I have a good idea, I also like to get the input of others, in an attempt to thwart any confirmation bias I might have of my own. In 2018, I made a thread on the forum asking people to collect all examples of "baggy elbowed" medieval dress they could find - those deemed similar enough to the dress of the VM crossbowman. I then collected all manuscripts and their dates. It turned out that there is a peak in popularity of this style of dress in the 1400-1430 period, overlapping nicely with the VM radiocarbon dating: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 

Another example is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of manuscripts and extant buildings with swallowtail merlons. 

What these projects have in common is that they ask a question, and then try to answer that question as objectively as possible. This can even be applied to more interpretative theories. Ask questions and find the answers. Think a folio from Q13 looks like ovaries? Alright, what did medieval depictions of ovaries look like? What did they write about ovaries?

(18-03-2024, 08:22 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The problem with the Voynich is that it makes us feel like we are being proper scientists, finding evidence that confirms our theories

Bad science starts with trying to confirm or even 'prove' your own theories instead of falsifying hypotheses, thereby making alternative ones become more likely. The second you start looking for evidence that fits and reaffirms your expectations, you are already on the path to pseudoscience. One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it focuses on finding evidence that confirms it while ignoring whatever doesn't 'fit'. This cherry-picking is the dreadful confirmation bias we see in 99.98% of Voynich Manuscript 'theories' which are not only useless but also a waste of the authors precious lifetime. I feel bad for the people every time I read I've solved the VM and it's... here. So much work and time spent for nothing.

The hardest and most important part of proper science is asking the right questions and formulating good and falsifiable hypotheses. Good questions should be as simple and unambiguous as possible and you should adopt a neutral stance towards the answers not favoring one outcome over the other but focus on just finding an answer - no matter what it would be. Be open-minded!

Yes, that's really hard for us humans because we have feelings and love being 'right' or even want to become famous. Great scientists have fallen for this so I'm not blaming anyone falling into that rabbit-hole. But if you do, at least be smart enough to get out instead of digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

(18-03-2024, 09:21 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Bad science starts with trying to confirm or even 'prove' your own theories instead of falsifying hypotheses, thereby making alternative ones become more likely.

I agree. Instead of me trying to show that my idea about Ensoulment is correct, someone out there needs to show why it cannot be correct.

It's easier said than done, but always ask yourself at every stage:  "Why might I be wrong?"

Also, there is something subtle but very useful I have learned recently. When I get this nagging feeling that "nobody will believe this" or "everybody will complain about this", I have learned that this is probably not because people don't want to understand. It is because the proposal is too speculative and not supported by enough evidence. It takes some humility to accept these kinds of social cues, but I have found it very useful in my writing.

(18-03-2024, 10:37 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's easier said than done, but always ask yourself at every stage:  "Why might I be wrong?"

I did that before I came here and presented my idea. Now I am interested in hearing what ideas other people have. Excluding magic, space aliens, time travelers, and other exotic ideas, it seems these are the four topics that have been suggested so far for the meaning in the non-plant pages based on the illustrations.

- Women's health manual
- Alchemy
- Christian allegories
- Ensoulment (including pregnancy)

Did I miss anything that should be added to this list?

I did not include Earnest Lillie's idea about Dante's Divine Comedy on this list because I personally ruled out that one.

Speaking quite in general, I note two ways in which people tend to judge the illustrations.

One is deductive. Try to understand what is there without any prejudice. Allow for several different interpretations.

The other is more like projection. The observer has an overall hypothesis or theory, and wants to see how this illustration fits with that theory.

Now the deduction / projection approaches do not necessarily stand on their own.

It can be illustrated with the overall work of Tucker, Talbert and Janick.

First they (probably just Arthur Tucker) was struck by the resemblance of one plant to some native meso-American plant. This would have been deductive.
But then in a later stage all illustrations were judged, based on how well they could be made to fit this theory. This is where the 'projection'  set it.

This also fits with Koen's comment on confirmation bias:
the (not really) scientific process would be like this.

1) We are testing our hypothesis X
2) Let's see if illustration Y fits our hypothesis (projection on-going)
3) Indeed, it seems to fit, so our hypothesis more likely to be correct (confirmation bias on-going)

This process also works with text interpretation theories.
Cheshire's mapping of everything to some kind of proto-italic language is a good example.

(18-03-2024, 10:42 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, there is something subtle but very useful I have learned recently. When I get this nagging feeling that "nobody will believe this" or "everybody will complain about this", I have learned that this is probably not because people don't want to understand. It is because the proposal is too speculative and not supported by enough evidence. It takes some humility to accept these kinds of social cues, but I have found it very useful in my writing.

I'm sorry that has been your experience. That has not been my experience. I have spent my entire life as the one swimming against the current. I have spent my entire life with people telling me I was wrong. I don't let that stop me. I have learned to trust my own judgment. I go with the evidence, not other people's opinions. I generally get most things right.

(19-03-2024, 12:49 AM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have learned to trust my own judgment. I go with the evidence, not other people's opinions. I generally get most things right.

 

That mindset is what drives most Voynich theorists. Yet they cannot all be right.

(19-03-2024, 07:50 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(19-03-2024, 12:49 AM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have learned to trust my own judgment. I go with the evidence, not other people's opinions. I generally get most things right.

 

That mindset is what drives most Voynich theorists. Yet they cannot all be right.

They say the devil is in the details. They can't all be right – in whole, but there are areas where the different ideas overlap.

I think you and I both agree that the Rosettes page is some kind of representation of Heaven. We just disagree on the details of that representation of Heaven. I don't know if anything has been presented from the Women's Health Manual camp or the Alchemy camp on what they think the Rosettes page represents.

I see the five classic elements. The Alchemy camp sees the five classic elements. But that's pretty basic. It's like saying the ancient people saw the sky as blue and blood as red.

I think the Women's Health Manual camp and I both agree that there is discussion about female anatomy.

Maybe the key to moving forward is in the areas where the different ideas do agree. I see this as progress.