The Voynich Ninja

I wrote this in response to the frequent admonition that if I would only "listen to the experts", I would realize why my various ideas... and my current Modern Forgery hypothesis, are wrong.

Well I am a skeptic at heart, and I don't feel being one is a bad thing. But also, when recently so challenged to listen to the experts, I realized something: I actually do listen to them, and always have. In fact I, and anyone who believes this is a modern forgery, along with me, really agrees with most of the experts of the past, and many of the present.

To explain: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I do listen to the experts, in fact. Do you?

Rich.

I think the problem comes with the use of the term "experts". There is nobody who really definitively can be called an "expert" on the Voynich manuscript. You are precisely an example of the point that it is difficult to find a consensus on any aspect of the Voynich manuscript. Take the Rosettes Folio and we have many different ideas what this page represents.

I think you are completely wrong about it being a modern hoax, but I think the chance of me or any evidence persuading you otherwise is very slim.

The only conclusion one could have drawn before the carbon dating was that people seemed to have had a hard time agreeing on a dating for the MS. If they had brought on board someone specialized in medieval dress, they would have certainly pointed to the first half of the 15th century. 

What was the background of the people offering date ranges for the MS, and what were those assessments based upon? A look at a few black and white scans? A specific part of the MS? All of these things matter.

As for your support for Yanick and Tucker, I am greatly confused. They claim that "the Voynich is a 16th century codex associated with indigenous Indians of Nueva España educated in schools established by the Spanish". If I recall correctly, they even had an author in mind, a 16th century painter known for his work decorating churches.

I just don't get it. Why would Wilfrid Voynich make something that looks like it is made by Mexicans and then try to sell it as the Roger Bacon cipher manuscript?

(23-03-2024, 08:32 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wrote this in response to the frequent admonition that if I would only "listen to the experts", I would realize why my various ideas... and my current Modern Forgery hypothesis, are wrong.

Well I am a skeptic at heart, and I don't feel being one is a bad thing. But also, when recently so challenged to listen to the experts, I realized something: I actually do listen to them, and always have. In fact I, and anyone who believes this is a modern forgery, along with me, really agrees with most of the experts of the past, and many of the present.

To explain: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I do listen to the experts, in fact. Do you?

Rich.

"Skepticism is one of the driving forces of science, or the investigation of any mystery or problem."


I agree. Keep being skeptical. All the different expert opinions can't be right. But it is possible for them to all be wrong.

In my opinion, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in Quire 10 is a new star-soul in a baby in the womb. Probably drawn around 1420-ish.

I have to agree with Koen. If the experts knew about medieval cosmic diagrams, why call the VMs cosmos Andromeda? Why did it take so long to find the historical connections to BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334?? And Shirakatsi's wheel?

How did the experts miss the mythical story of Melusine? And why did they ignore the armorial and ecclesiastical heraldry that intimates a person historically connected to Roger Bacon, when it was the intent to connect the VMs with Roger Bacon?

The VMs artist knows quite a bit about the realities of the 1400 to 1450 (maybe) era. It is the investigator, not the artist, who must learn the details of the Melusine myth and its Valois connections. And the same goes for sleeves, hats, cosmic diagrams, and so on. These are independent investigations that turn out to be mutually compatible with the C-14 dates. How does that happen? How did it happen unbeknownst to, or at least never mentioned by the 'experts'?

(23-03-2024, 09:20 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for your support for Yanick and Tucker, I am greatly confused. They claim that "the Voynich is a 16th century codex associated with indigenous Indians of Nueva España educated in schools established by the Spanish". If I recall correctly, they even had an author in mind, a 16th century painter known for his work decorating churches.

I just don't get it. Why would Wilfrid Voynich make something that looks like it is made by Mexicans and then try to sell it as the Roger Bacon cipher manuscript?

Perhaps I am missing something; I did not read Rich's article as a support for [Janick] and Tucker's claims on the theory of origin at all. In fact, his theory of a modern forgery would specifically contradict their idea regarding the origin of the manuscript, so he clearly does NOT agree with their theory or support them in that sense.  

I believe his point was only that they -- being researchers who must inarguably considered "experts" in plant identification -- identified many things in the manuscript that are consistent with a post-Columbian "time" of origin.  And it seems, Rich's bigger point is that one cannot both argue "listen to the experts" while at the same time picking and choosing which experts one should to listen to.

Your question of why Voynich would make something "that looks like it is made by Mexicans..." is a good one, but we need to recognize it as a question that addresses the implications of the Voyich-created-forgery idea, and not the conclusions drawn from observations about the content of manuscript. 

We should avoid conflating conclusions with the implications of those conclusions -- something which is not uncommon in the Voynich research, or even in a lot of published research in general. 

For example, carbon dating experts have concluded that the animal that produced the vellum most probably died around 1404-1438. This might well imply that the manuscript was created shortly thereafter.  But that is NOT a conclusion -- it is an implication that should only be considered in conjunction with all the other evidence. Most importantly, that implication cannot be used to simply invalidate some other evidentiary conclusion even if that other conclusion has inconsistent implications. (e.g. If a plant drawing looks like a sunflower, it looks like a sunflower, regardless of C14 dating.) And should it turn out that Voynich himself created the manuscript, that would not invalidate the conclusion of the C14 tests -- it would only invalidate the inference that was drawn from it.

Likewise, we have plant identification experts that have found the plant drawings resemble plants found in America.  Should the manuscript eventually be found to have originated in the 15th century, it would not invalidate those conclusions regarding the plant drawings. The resemblance (and the experts' conclusion of resemblance) of the drawings to American plants would not suddenly disappear.  It is the implication of their conclusion --that the manuscript was post-Columbian -- that would be invalidated.

In short, conclusions can invalidate implications (drawn from other conclusions), but implications cannot invalidate conclusions. And subtly adopting an implication as a conclusion will not give it the power to invalidate other conclusions.

Well to me this seems to be about how we rely on experts. It is not because someone has any PhD, that they can be relied upon to assess a medieval artefact. 

Certain herbal traditions stray very far from botanical reality. In these cases, asking the opinion of a botanist may be counterproductive.

I also don't think Rich should cherry pick from their findings. He likes that they said the plants are American, but he doesn't like that they did so in the framework of their Mexican theory.

Again though, why would the European Voynich put so many American plants in his forgery?

It, of course, depends on what they have a PhD in. Someone who is a Professor in Chemistry couldn't be considered an expert in the context of the Voynich manuscript.

@asteckley
You write "Likewise, we have plant identification experts that have found the plant drawings resemble plants found in America." Now I have to ask, which experts? I don't know of a single expert on plants who has written anything about the VM manuscript - plants.
So I wouldn't consider a priest, or a computer maths expert as a plant expert either. Nor an anonymous florist. So where are the experts?
Even if many plants are similar to American plants, a sunflower is a sunflower. The flower may be similar, but the leaves are far removed from reality. Stolfi has also recognised this, and he is not a plant expert.
And then there are the architectural references. A church is not just a church. A tower with bay windows is strange, and when do you think palisade fences were replaced by city walls in America, and why do I see a city gate?
What does the architecture say next to the plants? These are just two clues.

(25-03-2024, 08:32 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It, of course, depends on what they have a PhD in. Someone who is a Professor in Chemistry couldn't be considered an expert in the context of the Voynich manuscript.

I would have to disagree with that claim as stated. It's true a chemistry PhD can't be claimed as evidence that one is an expert in certain aspects of the Voynich. But expertise and graduate credentials are generally orthogonal. 

A PhD is not an indication of expertise within the field of the degree nor outside it.  I say this as someone who puts great value on the achievement of a graduate degree. But as my own PhD supervisor once said: a PhD is simply a formal demonstration that one can carry out 'independent research' and it counts for little more; Expertise is acquired by experience.

Conversely, it does not require a PhD to become an expert in a subject (God help us all if that we true.)

(Nor, incidentally, does it take a PhD to recognize if a plant drawing resembles a particular plant. It may take solid rational arguments  to infer the artist's actual intentions -- which an expert in a relevant field may have more readily at hand -- but resemblance can be concluded by anyone with common skills.)