(28-04-2024, 11:38 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With regard to point 1, I doubt it because no one who understood the concept of falsifiability would ever commit the error of thinking that you can prove the Voynich is authentic. You can't. You can only (potentially) falsify it's authenticity.
With regard to point two, "we can never know for sure if either is true" does not logically imply that we could never know (or at the very least have high certainty) if the authenticity hypothesis is false if that's the case . That's the whole point of falsifiability, which was Popper's attempt to cut the Gordian knot with regard to the 400+ year debate about the problem of induction by saying you can't solve the problem of induction and putting forward falsifiability as an alternative way of thinking about what constitutes a "good" theory. With regard to the rest of that paragraph, I am aware that there is a position that claims falsification is impossible because all observations are theory laden. I do not find it persuasive. Your mileage may vary.
So suppose the C-14 dating had come back with a result that the calves whose hides were used died in the 1870s. It didn't -- but it could have. Had that happened, it's abstractly possible someone could have said, "well, the statement that the calves died in the 1870s is itself a heavily theory-laden claim that relies on a whole bunch of stuff being true all the way down to our theories about atomic structure, so 
" or "maybe those samples all coincidentally happened to have several-dozen-standard-deviations-from-the-mean fewer decay events than average, so shrug-emoji" but I doubt anyone would have seriously entertained either of those positions.
Meanwhile, there is no result that the C-14 dating could have found that could have falsified a "modern forgery" theory because there's no reason for a modern forgery theory to predict any particular constraints on the dates of any of the samples. This is not a subtle point.
Karl
The point of potential falsifiability of Modern Forgery has been addressed in this thread already, and they seem to have been missed. So this is a good place to reiterate them in a summary.
1) Anyone who believes that Modern Forgery has already been factually disproved has therefore also already ascertained that this hypothesis is falsifiable. Therefore, Karl, if you or others are now reopening the question of falisfiability of Modern Forgery, you are also conceding that (and I agree) 1420 Genuine is NOT proven. Maybe the camp on this is divided, and I would say it is... and goes back and forth on this issue, at one time conceding it has not been settled, but then claimed 1420 Genuine has been settled... sometimes by the same players. So the first thing to do, for anyone wanting to know the answer to falisfiability of modern forgery, would first have to decide if they think it is a proven fact that the Voynich is genuine, or not.
[
attachment=8464]
That is just one example of hundreds, above: If this is accepted as correct, then we also know that Zandbergen and Prinke have declared Modern Forgery falsifiable. But the internet is rife with descriptions of modern forgery being false, in one way or the other, either directly saying it is impossible, or disproved, or that 1420 Genuine has been proven... which is the same thing. If 1420 is proven true, then at the same time, modern forgery has been proven false, and therefore, falsifiable to those who hold this absolute view. Do you?
2) If, on the other hand, like me, one accepts that both 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal, and my own Modern Forgery theories have NOT been proven, then, yes, the question of falsifiabilty of both comes into play.
3) Using, as many have here, some imagined, potential response from me, or anyone (as in your imagined "1870 C14" responses, above), as what I would consider evidence to falsify my own theory, is a totally invalid method of determining this. Each person, of course, will have a different standard, that is normal. And I have my standards. But it becomes absurd to claim my theory is not falisfiable based on some imagined Straw Man Rich in the future, and what I would think. Rather, if my opinion on this is really being sought, then listen to my opinion, now. You can agree or disagree with my own standards of proof on this matter, but inventing standards for me makes no sense in any context. So the next points are what I would consider proof that the Voynich cannot be a forgery, and therefore demonstrate ample falisfiability of the Modern Forgery Hypothesis:
4) "I would NOT think that ink which carbon dated to the 15th century could reasonably be considered faked. As people have noted, and I agree, a forger in 1910 would not have predicted the upcoming advent of the radiocarbon dating process, and so they would not have gone through the trouble of, say, finding 500 year old galls to make it, or like that." So, if the "faded yellow", binder, or other component of the ink has sufficient organic compound to allow C14 testing, and is shown to be from, say, the 15th century, then Modern Forgery is false.
5) "[If] there is plain text content which would prove the manuscript genuine: If the information in the content is something that could not have been known to a 20th century forger, perhaps something revealed at a later date than 1912. There are many secrets of history only revealed in recent times, which a forger of 1910 could not have known... use your imagination, I could think of hundreds if I tried." This would prove the Modern Forgery Hypothesis false.
6) If an old, previously unknown source clearly points to the Voynich we see today: "There are still untapped archives and collections, which Voynich would have had no chance of having seen nor known about, because they were not opened or discovered until after 1910, or still are not. I think a copy of the Gospel of Thomas was found hidden in a pilaster of a staircase, where it clearly had been for centuries. And some Roman soldier's letters were found buried (and still readable) by Hadrian's wall. Cases like this are numerous... and while we can't know until we see it, of course such a source or item would [prove Modern Forgery false.
7) Additional items which are obviously in the same style and "language" of the Voynich, but which also have not been accessible to others. This would show that there was a genuine culture or discipline from which the Voynich had sprung from.
So, as I also wrote, on a previous thread:
(21-04-2024, 01:41 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And I've rejected supposed "proof of forgery", too, as I described. I was baited with a supposed letter by Wilfrid, which was to be produced for me if I went back to Italy to see it in person... they didn't want me to take pictures of it, and would not send me a copy. But it didn't pass the "smell test" to me, and I passed. I also rejected forged "proof of genuine", such as that fake Kircher book that excited people for awhile. Each item must be judged on its merits and failures, no matter if it supports my ideas or not.
So as I've said before, I see this very differently than many of you, in that it is not that my standards of proof of authenticity are so high, and impossible to meet, it is just that they are a bit higher than what is currently used to buttress genuine. Just because I don't accept what has been offered as "poof" does not mean nothing would meet the standard of "proof" to me. Not that other's standards are "wrong", but I would say that mine are not "wrong" either, we all just have different standards. And there are of course cases of standards of proof and disproof that transcend anyone's opinions, and which are unassailable, too... such as suggested here, carbon dating of the ink. Not everything rises to that level of standard, but I know that standard exists, and would acknowledge and accept that.
Anyway, I always think of that great comment by a US Supreme Court judge, when asked how one would know the difference between "art" and "pornography". He said of pornography (paraphrasing), "You will know it when you see it". Trouble is, one person's art is another's... you get the idea. This is all subjective, but I do have standards, too. I'm not close to the "genuine proof skeptic" you seem to think I am.
Alternatively, I have given clear reasons why I do not accept those things currently proposed as proof the Voynich is genuine. Many of you do accept them, I don't. This does not mean that I would explain away any evidence at all, it is just that our standards differ on what is proof and what is not. And again, I also point out in defending the reality of these positions, that I have altered my positions in two very large ways, and dozens of smaller ones, as discussions and argument from others have made counter points to my claims, and demonstrated evidence that I was wrong.
I am practically unique in this. So to make imaginative predictions that my my future self would explain away any new evidence presented, is not only illogical to do, it is also baseless. Modern Forgery is clearly and obviously falsifiable. It is a valid hypothesis, and should be considered seriously.