The Voynich Ninja

The Voynich is little different to a crime scene. The forensic people come in and take all the measurements, compile the stats, take fingerprints, etc. These are experts in their (narrow and specific) fields. But it is the Detective - a generalist - who must asess that evidence, and the circumstantial evidence, and all the factors not covered by forensics, and keep an overview of the entire case. If a profile of the culprit is required, the Detective might consult a criminal psychologist - an expert. And so on. Experts are people you consult. But as Detectives and juries know, their opinion can be wrong (or partial), or unimportant in the wider context. It always takes a generalist to bring the whole case together.

In Voynich Studies there is an abundance of statistics, and it has had the attention of many experts, and much good work has been done, but the quality of Voynich generalists is miserably low - there is a lack of (non-experts) who are able to assess, weigh and prioritize all the evidence and bring together an overall picture of the case. This is the current situation. More experts need consulting, certainly, more forensic and statistical studies, but there is a huge amount of data already and very few people capable of stepping back and assessing what it all means.

(07-04-2024, 07:39 PM)Hermes777 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Experts are people you consult

In practice, in my opinion, serious researchers usually investigate details (individual aspects) of the VMS without asking overarching (meta-) questions. The generalists, on the other hand, often come up with a ready-made "solution" and only look for confirmation. Rarely are experts consulted in advance to check whether their own theories stand up to critical scrutiny or not. I would call such things "island solutions". Unfortunately, the quality is often rather low as a result. However, it is also possible that sometimes there is a lack of networking, i.e. the generalist does not know which experts to consult. A detective has an easier time of it. He can simply access existing structures.

(07-04-2024, 08:11 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-04-2024, 07:39 PM)Hermes777 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Experts are people you consult

In practice, in my opinion, serious researchers usually investigate details (individual aspects) of the VMS without asking overarching (meta-) questions. The generalists, on the other hand, often come up with a ready-made "solution" and only look for confirmation. Rarely are experts consulted in advance to check whether their own theories stand up to critical scrutiny or not. I would call such things "island solutions". Unfortunately, the quality is often rather low as a result. However, it is also possible that sometimes there is a lack of networking, i.e. the generalist does not know which experts to consult. A detective has an easier time of it. He can simply access existing structures.

Generalists should not come up with ready-made solutions and only look for confirmation. Instead, their task is to survey the data, consult as necessary, reflect, revise, stay rigorously objective and unattached, and seek a scenario that best fits the totality of the data and constitutes a case that is, in the best of possible worlds, beyond reasonable doubt. 

You try different scenarios, just as you draw up a list of suspects. 

But as you say, a detective has an easier time of it just by the nature of the case.

(07-04-2024, 08:11 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-04-2024, 07:39 PM)Hermes777 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Experts are people you consult

In practice, in my opinion, serious researchers usually investigate details (individual aspects) of the VMS without asking overarching (meta-) questions. 

It is exactly in the department of overarching meta questions that Voynich studies fails so spectacularly. Researchers do good work, gather stats, trawl over manuscripts etc. and rightly it is not part of their craft to contemplate metaquestions. But then, in response to this fine work, you have people asking "So, could this be connected to Atlantis?" That's the quality of the meta questions in this game! The solution is better, more intelligent, more contextual, more considered, more useful metaquestions that help give the flood of data some structure.

One thing I forgot to put in my last post, and some of the responses since reminded me I thought of it but forgot to mention it, is I believe the holistic approach will most likely require a team effort. In that regard, I agree there might be a generalist team leader who will help the team achieve a solution and there will certainly be team members who are at least very knowledgeable if not also having expertise in each of the various disciplines needed to examine and solve various aspects of the VM.

In a sense, this site is somewhat like such a team only we have too many diverse opinions to solve the VM as a single team. I have often looked for signs that members from different backgrounds here would form smaller teams than the site as a whole and work together under someone's leadership to see if that could accomplish more for researching the VM in whole instead of in part. The 2022 Malta Conference seemed like it could have been a step in that direction but it didn't go far enough and any momentum it built up dissipated afterwards. I have also seen some members break away to work as a team on specific parts of the VM (I have worked on one of them so far) but I have also seen such efforts stall. The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a current good example of a multi-disciplinary team working together to accomplish a common goal of cracking historical manuscript ciphers. If there could be one or more such teams working on the VM, only most likely larger and more diverse with multiple persons working in each discipline and more disciplines represented, we might see some progress towards a solution eventually. Like DECRYPT, we should all expect such teams working on the VM to take years to complete their projects but they could report their progress and findings along the way. It's worth noting that DECRYPT is funded and such an effort in VM research may also require funding. But hopefully lack of funding won't stop it from happening. Admittedly, such a team may need a core team of committed professionals with one of them as a strong team leader and clearly stated goals in order to obtain funding. It may even be, like the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., that there will need to be an outline of several goals to be achieved in stages with clear deadlines. All others on such a team could be participants and contributors from various backgrounds, including enthusiasts and amateurs. Having an effective and capable leadership will be essential, with or without funding, and a focused effort that continues through the completion of all team goals will be key to such a team's success. It will require quite a commitment on the part of each team member both to the effort and to the level of collaboration needed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there has been quite this level of multi-disciplinary team effort in VM research in a long time, if ever.

(05-04-2024, 01:53 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There has been a lot said recently about expert opinion. I think specialist opinion(I prefer the word "specialist" to "expert") is very valuable, as I have made clear. However one should always be cognisant of what an individual's expertise is in... ...There can really be said to be no experts on the Voynich I think. However, as I have said, there is scope for specialist opinion on parallel or related subjects.

Of course this refers to the thread discussing my recent blog post, "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", which elicited a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. here at the Ninjas. And I appreciate all of them, whether or not they fully understood the point I was making in my blog post, or whether I agree with the commenters, or vice-versa. But I have to say that this newly inspired thread is actually and EXACT representation of my key point: That we all can, and do, tailor the list of outside opinions to suit our needs at best, and our desires and expectations, at the worst.

I'm also seriously not suggesting this is not a valid practice. It is actually necessary, and we all do it. So in this new thread, I agree with almost all of the suggestions (with a couple of notable exceptions, which I will get to): For any outside opinion, we should ask, are they an expert? Are they an expert in an appropriate field to our problem? Are they professional, knowledgeable, biased, consistent, are they capable of error? And all that, and much more. But, by going over the problem of doing this, in this new thread, in essence you have demonstrated one of the core points I was making in my blog post, in the first place: You decide, we decide, what opinion we will accept, and which we will reject.

But then the second important consideration, which is a fundamental distinction, after realizing that weaning outside opinion is always done, and usually necessary, is to know our motivations in doing so. And that, I feel, can be broken down into two major categories:

1) Using outside opinion, of any kind, as a tool to learn the answer to a problem.

2) Using outside opinion, of any kind, to justify a preconceived, or otherwise derived, conclusion.

THAT is, to me, the real question: When is #1 being done, and when is #2 the case. And these converstations, here at the Ninja's, has been valuable to me in allowing me to realize this is the core point which can be derived from all this, and one which I tackled in less direct ways. But if I were to rewrite my post, or write a follow up ("Expert Opinion, Part 2"?), I will make this distinction clearer.

So TLDR to this first part of my response here: No, I absolutely agree there is a need to filtering any outside opinion, however we classify said opinion; but the real question would be, "What are our motivations in doing so? Is it to find an answer, or to support a preconception?".

I would suggest that the other point of my post was, although not directly so stated, in the "I Do.." part. By my making the case that I accept far more of the outside opinions... expert or however one defines it... I am "listening". That this obvious cacophony of varied opinions fits, IMO, forgery quite well, for all the reasons I've long outlined. And that, on the contrary, I would suggest that taking this "C14 Dating-centric" approach, using the radiocarbon date range as the locus, the starting point for all ensuing "truths" about the Voynich, necessitates the drastic weaning down of those same outside opinions that I, by contrast, can and do accept.

(07-04-2024, 02:57 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-04-2024, 02:49 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, it is difficult to objectively assess the quality of the opinions of individual experts, as they are not on the same thematic level.

I interpret this as saying that 'we' (the Voynich amateurs) are not able to do that.
I try to adhere to that as much as I can.

With respect, Rene, you are an expert. And in fact, you are rightly considered the premier expert on the Voynich, however one defines such a person, as you have easily the largest and most valuable corpus of knowledge on the manuscript, in addition to having uncovered much original research of your own. Further more, I would argue that you... as much as anyone who delves into this mystery and all its problems, do, actually have every right to, and can, on their own, "... objectively assess the quality of the opinions of individual experts". I would also point out, that, despite your protestations to the contrary, have... as each and every one of us has... done so. In fact- although I sparked my "Experts..." blog post off with the quote from Koen, I did also have you in mind with this issue of "weaning of experts" to fit the C14 dates. This is because of our (now decade plus old!) discussions about that same list of experts, back when you were still on the voynich.net mailing list. You explained to me your criteria as to why various people on that list, who did not agree with the eventual C14 dating (before it was known), were not the right sort of expert to be considered.

So I don't mean to say that you should not do so, don't get me wrong. It is just that there is no one who does not do it, for whatever reason they see fit. And again, as amply outlined in this entire thread, is is normal, and proper... validating, rationalizing, explaining, defining all opinions on a multitude of criteria, then deciding what to accept, and what to reject.

(07-04-2024, 11:14 PM)Hermes777 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Researchers do good work, gather stats, trawl over manuscripts etc. and rightly it is not part of their craft to contemplate metaquestions. But then, in response to this fine work, you have people asking "So, could this be connected to Atlantis?" That's the quality of the meta questions in this game! The solution is better, more intelligent, more contextual, more considered, more useful metaquestions that help give the flood of data some structure.

Hermes777, I am sure you are not aware of this, as the issue is probably "before your time" in the Voynich field, but the use of "Atlantis" as an example of ridiculous Voynich theories has its origins in an old ad hominem directed against me. It was an intentional and false conflation of the fictional "Atlantis" with my hypothesis that the Voynich had content inspired by the (very real) work by Francis Bacon, "The New Atlantis". I was pursuing the idea the Voynich might be some sort of "homage", or early fan fiction, reflecting Bacon's work. But during the time I was exploring this possibility, I was widely derided by untrue claims that I believed in Atlantis, and that I was claiming the VMs was created "there". Of course not. But my ideas were lumped in with Wotan, Alien, Conspiracy Theories... any "tin foil hat" idea out there. This even continued into personal meetings, such as the time I was saying goodbye to a fellow researcher, telling him I hoped to see him again soon, when he surprisingly, and mockingly, told me, "Maybe I see you in Atlantis?". I admit, that stung.

But the point is not to cry about this, as much as to point out that, among the many reasons to reject someone's outside opinions, one of the worst is to associate their real opinions with false and unsavory positions that they do not, and would never, hold. Which brings me to this:

merrimacga Wrote:For those who have been researching the VM for a long time, one should also consider whether they have changed their opinions over time and to what extent and in what ways. Certainly, we might lend less weight to the opinions of VM researchers who frequently flip flop between two or more divergent opinions, for example.

I can only assume that this rejection of "flip floppers" is also a reference to my recent comments, found under the other thread, in which I make the point that the fact that I have moved from two major, and several minor, hypotheses, is proof that the claims I am driven by a "forgery" agenda, or any agenda, and that I don't listen to the opinions of others, are all incorrect.

Well whether or not "flip flop" refers to me specifically, and to that point which I have made defense of my approach, I would suggest that it would be a seriously incorrect criteria by which to reject anyone's opinions. It is part of the scientific process to be ready to question one's own beliefs, to test one's hypotheses, and to reject them in whole or in part when they do not stand scrutiny. That is the right thing to do. I would, rather than consider rejecting the opinion of anyone who is willing to use critical introspection to adjust their own positions, it should instead assure others of their open-mindedness, and readiness to go wherever the evidence takes them. It is also evidence that one is seeking answers to, and not simply confirmations of, their ideas.

And for an overall TLDR, similar to the first one, with addendums: Rejecting any opinion, however one classifies it, is valid and even necessary in any investigation; but when doing so, one must ask the more important question, "Are my motives for doing so to answer the question, or to validate my own beliefs? And furthermore, when using criteria to reject those opinions, are they based on a real valuation of the input they offer, or rejected on false or hypocritical grounds?"

Rich.

(11-04-2024, 05:45 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(05-04-2024, 01:53 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There has been a lot said recently about expert opinion. I think specialist opinion(I prefer the word "specialist" to "expert") is very valuable, as I have made clear. However one should always be cognisant of what an individual's expertise is in... ...There can really be said to be no experts on the Voynich I think. However, as I have said, there is scope for specialist opinion on parallel or related subjects.

Of course this refers to the thread discussing my recent blog post, "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", which elicited a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. here at the Ninjas. 

It only refers in part to your thread, it also refers to previous discussion on experts/specialists. If it only referred to your thread then I would have posted in your thread.

(11-04-2024, 05:45 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With respect, Rene, you are an expert. And in fact, you are rightly considered the premier expert on the Voynich, however one defines such a person, as you have easily the largest and most valuable corpus of knowledge on the manuscript, in addition to having uncovered much original research of your own.

Rich

Your ideas as to who qualifies as an expert on the Voynich manuscript are not my own as I stated on your thread. I don't consider Wilfred Voynich or Newbold to be experts.

I don't wish to stoke controversy or insult, but I certainly wouldn't consider Rene or anyone else including myself an expert on the Voynich manuscript. It seems in order to be an expert you would at least be able to answer with certainty who wrote the manuscript and what it says. So little is known for certain about the manuscript that I think it dangerous to regard anyone as an expert on it. One can be knowledgeable about existing research into it and debates which have taken place, but I don't think that is the same as being an expert.

In fact if you are right that it is a forgery then Rene and most other people have been completely wrong about the manuscript, which hardly qualifies them to be experts.

I think ideally we would have a list of genuine specialists in fields related to Voynich research that we could consult. These could be specialists in the history of astrology or the history of herbal manuscripts and other fields(I am open to suggestions).

On a personal level I have contacted specialists in medieval maps regarding the Rosettes Folio and I would appreciate it if specialists could be consulted regarding the other theories of the page such as specialists in medieval cosmology and other relevant specialists to other theories of the page.

(05-04-2024, 01:53 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There has been a lot said recently about expert opinion. I think specialist opinion(I prefer the word "specialist" to "expert") is very valuable, as I have made clear. However one should always be cognisant of what an individual's expertise is in. If, for example, they are an expert in medieval astrology, but have made a statement regarding medieval herbal manuscripts in which they are not an expert then one needs to be aware of this. The blanket using of the term expert is problematic without being very precise about what their expertise encompasses. Of course, being a specialist in an area doesn't mean you are right as specialists sometimes get things wrong. Ideally one would have the opinion of many specialists on a specific subject.

When it comes to the Voynich itself I would say that we should be very wary of considering anyone an expert on the manuscript as so little is currently know about the manuscript and so many questions are left unanswered. There can really be said to be no experts on the Voynich I think. However, as I have said, there is scope for specialist opinion on parallel or related subjects.

(12-04-2024, 06:00 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(11-04-2024, 05:45 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With respect, Rene, you are an expert. And in fact, you are rightly considered the premier expert on the Voynich, however one defines such a person, as you have easily the largest and most valuable corpus of knowledge on the manuscript, in addition to having uncovered much original research of your own.

Rich

Your ideas as to who qualifies as an expert on the Voynich manuscript are not my own as I stated on your thread. I don't consider Wilfred Voynich or Newbold to be experts.

I don't wish to stoke controversy or insult, but I certainly wouldn't consider Rene or anyone else including myself an expert on the Voynich manuscript. It seems in order to be an expert you would at least be able to answer with certainty who wrote the manuscript and what it says. So little is known for certain about the manuscript that I think it dangerous to regard anyone as an expert on it. One can be knowledgeable about existing research into it and debates which have taken place, but I don't think that is the same as being an expert.

In fact if you are right that it is a forgery then Rene and most other people have been completely wrong about the manuscript, which hardly qualifies them to be experts.

I think, again, you are entirely missing my point... and at the same time, demonstrating my point in action. And in doing this, you have actually implemented it to a radical extreme...

Yes, absolutely, it is your prerogative, and anyone else's, mine included, to decide what outside opinion we think valuable, and for all the reasons you and others have outlined. I have no problem at all with your disagreeing with me that Rene is an expert on the Voynich, if you genuinely don't feel that he is. I do think you will have a steep hill to climb to make that point, but of course that is your right to feel that way...

But I admit I am surprised to see anyone use my own hypothesis to argue against him being an expert! That is a bit "circular", I think. It is similar to an old argument against my hypothesis that goes, "If it was a forgery, it would have been disclosed as one by now, therefore it is not a forgery". Which is, of course, entirely circular, and instantly makes every bit of art and literature, in all collections, genuine.

But your new one, here, is a bit the opposite... and the logic of it gets all tangled up and is difficult to unravel... but, in essence, you are saying I, me, Rich, cannot call Rene an expert on the Voynich because I also believe the Voynich to be a modern fake, and Rene does not, therefore I cannot call him an expert?

Well I disagree, because I can feel Charles Singer, Panofsky, Rugg, Pelling, Bax, and so on, and whomever, are experts on the Voynich, or related fields of botany, paleography, art history, whatever... and even agree with almost everything they have noted as to the appearance, construction, and content of the Voynich, and yet explain their wildly different opinions as to what all that they report means as being by far best explained by the Voynich being a modern fake. I don't have to discount the work of Rene nor anyone to do so.

(But I have to say I find it stunningly ironic that you, Rene, are tossed off the list somehow, and worse yet, on the basis of my theories!)

To use someone's allegory (and I have used it, too) of a criminal trial: It is exactly why we have juries. If all the witnesses, all the experts, the defendant and the victims, all simply had to walk in a courtroom, tell their stories, and we would automatically know who was guilty or not... then we would NOT need juries! Juries decide what witnesses, which experts, which evidence, what testimony, they consider valid. They throw out contradictory evidence all the time. I've been a foreman on a Federal Grand Jury (USA), and the first instruction to us was that if we considered any testimony invalid, we could disregard it, and further, we could reject all the testimony from that source.

We were a "jury of the peers" of the accused (two police officers). Am I a cop? A forensic handwriting expert? A certified public accountant? A witness to the crime? For that matter, was/am I an expert in law? No of course not. I, and the other jurors, were tasked with sorting through all the testimony, all the participants, and determining the "truth of the matter".

As we all are, here, with the Voynich. We all have all this stuff in front of us, and we damned well have every right, and every obligation, to figure out what to do with it all. And like a criminal trial, there is no way to USE it all, so we have to sift through it all... as the comments in these two threads amply describe.

So all this seeming angst over trying to define what "testimony", what evidence, and so on, one should or should not accept, well Mark I have never disagreed with that at all. My points here are different, and somehow it seems, elusive... when making the decision what testimony and evidence to accept or reject, ask yourself if you are doing it to find the answer to the Voynich; or, on the contrary, to support a belief as to what you already think the Voynich is.

Rich.

[Edited in an attempt to clarify some points]