(19-07-2024, 09:13 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Torsten: There are all sorts of possible methods of text generation such as pick a symbol at random according to probability distribution based on its word position. Is that more plausible than your explanation?
The burden of proof is on the side claiming that there is another text generation method, that is even more plausible. So maybe you should publish your "pick a symbol at random" text generation method along with some generated sample texts. Then it would be possible to check if a medieval scribe could have used such a method and if your method is able to reproduce features like the "binomial-like" word length distributions for word types as well as for word tokens, the shift from Currier A to Currier B, both of Zipfs-Law etc.
(19-07-2024, 09:13 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Fundamentally, your method it is too vague. If you could produce an algorithm which would exactly generate the Voynich text that would be something else.
The core instruction is simply to repeat parts of previously written word tokens with various changes and additions. The experiment by Gaskell and Bowern demonstrates that it is even sufficient to instruct volunteers to "write some 100 words with fake, meaningless text in a language that you make up as you go" [Gaskell & Bowern 2022]. Some volunteers will likely conclude that it is easier to repeat previously written words with various changes and additions than to invent new words. More detailed instructions are not necessary. The key point of the method is that someone who repeatedly copies words over and over again will develop their own style and habits in the process. Try it yourself: write some pages full of language-like gibberish or ask some volunteers to do so.
The whole point of writing gibberish is that it doesn't matter what you write. Therefore, if someone could present an algorithm that exactly reproduces the Voynich text, this would actually disprove my hypothesis.
(19-07-2024, 09:13 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the implications that the text is meaningless raises all sorts of questions with respect to the plausibility of that conclusion.
It only makes sense to discuss the implications of the self-citation method if you accept the idea that this method was used for writing the Voynich text. Therefore, it surprises me when people argue against a conclusion of a theory they claim they haven't considered.
(12-06-2024, 07:02 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Torsten's theory. Pelling's Averlino theory. Stephen Bax' theory. The Turkish theory. My theory that the rosettes contain heavenly Jerusalem. Your theory about the rosettes. Anyone else's theory about the rosettes. Good luck falsifying any of those in a convincing way. And even if you do, I'm sure goalposts will be moved and arguments will be made to make it unfalsified again.
I think this is a good example of the problem with theory-driven research. Until/unless the manuscript is cracked nobody can say with honesty with any of these theories are impossible, which means one or more of the researchers mentioned are so captured by their theory that they plough enormous amounts of time and energy into defending and proving it despite the fact it, when weighed against the evidence and probabilities, is
almost certainly false [I'm not naming names as I don't want to debate specific theories here]. That's their choice and I hope it makes them happy but personally I find it a real waste.
Nick Pelling is not blinded by his Averlino theory. He puts his energies into learning more about the manuscript, not on proving a specific theory, so his research is useful to the whole field.
There's nothing wrong with having theories, especially if you use them as a starting point to answer questions about the MS. The problem is when you start ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your theory.
I completely agree, though this part is where it gets tricky:
(23-07-2024, 08:33 AM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There's nothing wrong with having theories, especially if you use them as a starting point to answer questions about the MS. The problem is when you start ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your theory.
Can you really have a theory and then still judge evidence in a neutral way? The problem with starting out with a theory is that then all evidence will be weighed in the light of that theory. And that is how we get confirmation bias loops, and before you know it, people have become completely convinced by things that seem bizarre to anyone who did not experience this accumulation of "evidence" through confirmation bias.
Having experienced this myself, I can say that starting out from a theory is a guaranteed recipe for disaster. Once the theory has formed, the chances of objective assessment of evidence become very slim. I have noticed that experienced Voynich researchers often add some caveats to the more "adventurous" ideas they mention, probably as a way to keep themselves and/or others from theory building.
(23-07-2024, 11:22 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Can you really have a theory and then still judge evidence in a neutral way?
I think you can, though it takes a certain kind of mindset and scientific rigour that most people don't have. So while I do agree with you that theory-led research is dangerous, I can't say it's a "guaranteed" recipe for disaster. At the same time I don't think it's a coincidence that all the best (in my opinion) Voynich research is coming from people who don't have a strong attachment to any theory.
I have seen people criticised for not having a theory as it's a "cop out" or cowardice. I find that a really strange mindset.
(23-07-2024, 03:30 PM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So while I do agree with you that theory-led research is dangerous, I can't say it's a "guaranteed" recipe for disaster.
At the same time I don't think it's a coincidence that all the best (in my opinion) Voynich research is coming from people who don't have a strong attachment to any theory.
I think this is a question regarding the Philosophy of Science or maybe the Philosophy of Historical Research. From my acquaintance lots of good research in science or history has been what I think you call theory-led. I would be interested in seeing someone argue against that. I don't see any reason to expect Voynich research to be any different.
I think to extol the achievements of non-theory driven Voynich research is certainly premature. By far the biggest achievement in Voynich research so far has been the carbon dating. All the other achievements have been very modest by comparison.
I think we will be best placed to discuss the merits of theory-led or non-theory-led research with regards to the Voynich when Voynich research is much further progressed.
I think there also needs to be made a distinction between incremental research progress and sudden jumps in progress. I get the impression that some people view Voynich research progress being made by adding one small brick ontop of another at a time until the manuscript is fully understood. However I think that this will not necessarily by the case, but rather there can be sudden breakthroughs and sudden jumps forward in research progress.
(23-07-2024, 08:33 AM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nick Pelling is not blinded by his Averlino theory.
To me, Nick's Averlino theory is an interesting one and so it isn't to be considered "blinding".
A lot has to do with personal perspective. Little bricks, when they fit together, eventually create a structure. If that structure is a surprise; *Surprise!*
I'm going to alter the interpretation of "Scientific Progress" as a request for 'validated' or 'authenticated' progress - whether it is "scientific" or not. It's a request for something that actually adds to our knowledge, rather than the repetitive, flash-in-the-pan situations that have prevailed. The emphasis is on progress.
Progress comes from the investigation, the interpretation, and the understanding of the evidence. The evidence comes from the VMs. Progress comes when one investigation is found to be compatible with another. White Aries for example.
The big problem here is that compatible does not mean correct (at all!).
(26-07-2024, 01:23 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The big problem here is that compatible does not mean correct (at all!).
Such a blanket statement would seem to imply that investigations found to be compatible are guaranteed to be flawed and inaccurate.
If two investigations are perceived as being reasonably accurate, [say the cosmic investigation that dates BNF Fr. 565 as c. 1410, and the sleeve investigation dated to the 1420s, and both of these within the C-14 range], then this seems (IMHO) to lend a bit of extra credence to both investigations, as compared with the situation where all investigations are mutually *incompatible*.
Compatibility may not guarantee accuracy. Investigations would hopefully be validated as much as possible beforehand. Then, if two investigations are compatible, look for a third investigation that fits with the prior results. At some point the question must arise. How can all of these investigations fit together, based on historical evidence, and still be dismissed as invalid?
(23-07-2024, 11:22 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Can you really have a theory and then still judge evidence in a neutral way? The problem with starting out with a theory is that then all evidence will be weighed in the light of that theory. And that is how we get confirmation bias loops, and before you know it, people have become completely convinced by things that seem bizarre to anyone who did not experience this accumulation of "evidence" through confirmation bias.
The problem is that everyone in the Voynich community has their own assumptions about the manuscript. So, how can you be sure that your assumptions about the Voynich manuscript are correct? Anyway, you shouldn't argue that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood [see You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.].
(26-07-2024, 01:23 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The big problem here is that compatible does not mean correct (at all!).
How can a theory be proved or disproved, if not by checking if the theory aligns with the evidence?