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.
Is all the work of Professor Stephen Bax (1960-2017) to be tossed in the trash?
Ten years ago:
Stephen Bax
Voynich manuscript: script and language
Apr 11, 2014
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Shortly before he died:
Voynich.Ninja
The Voynich Ninja interviews Prof Stephen Bax
Sep 15, 2017
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Of course I cringe when I see him talking about Taurus. I wish I could have told him my ideas about Ensoulment.
I should say that I think it is possible to be knowledgeable about the current state of Voynich research and that is useful, but I think distinct from being an expert on the Voynich manuscript.
(05-04-2024, 05:19 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I should say that I think it is possible to be knowledgeable about the current state of Voynich research and that is useful, but I think distinct from being an expert on the Voynich manuscript.
How would you summarize the the current state of Voynich research? What current projects do you think have the greatest potential for finding the meaning of the manuscript?
Artificial Intelligent?
Parchment DNA database?
(05-04-2024, 05:39 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (05-04-2024, 05:19 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I should say that I think it is possible to be knowledgeable about the current state of Voynich research and that is useful, but I think distinct from being an expert on the Voynich manuscript.
How would you summarize the the current state of Voynich research? What current projects do you think have the greatest potential for finding the meaning of the manuscript?
Artificial Intelligent?
Parchment DNA database?
I am not an expert in Artificial intelligence. However if this technology is progressing as fast as the people working in that area claim then I don't find it implausible that it is used to decipher the Voynich in the next 20 years.
I wouldn't say it is necessarily wrong to use any particular terminology, whether that be expert, expertise, specialist, knowledgeable, enthusiast, etc. However, I do agree such terms need to be considered in context and that there are probably no VM experts specifically, though there are people who have been researching the VM long enough to be considered very knowledgeable. There are certainly many experts and other professionals and also enthusiasts in the various sciences related to VM research. How knowledgeable they are in general, how much expertise they have in the sciences they apply to their VM research, to what extent they apply their primary expertise versus other minor knowledge areas, and how long they have been researching the VM are all things one should consider before lending weight to their opinions and how much weight one should lend to those opinions. 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.
However, the VM requires an holistic approach, which, despite all the meeting of minds here on this site, is still sorely lacking in VM research. We cannot hope to solve the VM unless and until we come up with a solution for it as a whole and not just plant identification or text meaning or material composition or provenance, etc. Solutions for any one particular part of the VM must be in line with solutions for the rest of it.
This more than any other reason is why I agree that there are no VM experts. While some have tried an holistic approach, I would not consider any of them to be VM experts. It may well be there won't be any VM experts, as such, unless and until a solution to the VM as a whole is found.
(07-04-2024, 06:02 AM)merrimacga Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, the VM requires an holistic approach ...
A holistic approach is certainly good, but this is where detailed questions often arise that the researcher can no longer answer themselves. In such cases, the opinions of experts who are well versed in a particular field are certainly helpful. However, it is difficult to objectively assess the quality of the opinions of individual experts, as they are not on the same thematic level. Ideally, there should be several experts in the field in question so that the statements can be compared.
(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.
(07-04-2024, 02:49 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (07-04-2024, 06:02 AM)merrimacga Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, the VM requires an holistic approach ...
A holistic approach is certainly good, but this is where detailed questions often arise that the researcher can no longer answer themselves. In such cases, the opinions of experts who are well versed in a particular field are certainly helpful. However, it is difficult to objectively assess the quality of the opinions of individual experts, as they are not on the same thematic level. Ideally, there should be several experts in the field in question so that the statements can be compared.
We need to remember that the science, philosophy, theology, literature, psychology etc. in the Middle Ages were not as diversified as they are today. The artists, writers and poets were known to take the multidisciplinary approach in their work.
(07-04-2024, 04:35 PM)cvetkakocj@rogers.com Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The artists, writers and poets were known to take the multidisciplinary approach in their work.
That is true, but this aspect is independent of the question of whether an expert opinion is relevant in today's research or not.
By the way, some of the earlier polymaths also seem to have overestimated their own expertise. A proven, late example is Athanasius Kircher and his work on Egyptian hieroglyphics.