(14-08-2024, 06:01 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Torsten, while academic debate can be vigorous, it's better to adopt a tone which assumes the best of the people you're talking to. I know it can be frustrating when you see yourself in the right and everybody else needs to be corrected, but people might genuinely see things differently.
They might also want the chance to step out of a debate and think without the pressure of responding to accusations. Sometimes it's better to do the same ourselves rather than resorting to unproductive confrontation. In the end, we're not on a deadline for the work we're involved with. It should also be fun and interesting: none of us are getting paid to be here.
My intention is simply to explain my perspective on the research of Lisa Fagin Davis and Claire Bowern. Both Davis and Bowern are influential figures whose viewpoints are featured in prominent outlets like
The Atlantic, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., YouTube videos such as those from the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., and even You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.. In contrast, I'm just someone who has written a few papers on the subject and offered some critiques of their research (which can be found on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.). It's easy to dismiss my work as irrelevant since it hasn't gained the same level of popularity.
In my view, any criticism is welcome so long as the disagreement is explained clearly, along with the reasoning behind it. I view it as an opportunity for improvement and learning.
It is one thing to say: "I don't agree with a number of points in this article".
It is another to say: "It is all wrong because he only listened to these two people".
That is where this whole discussion went on the wrong track, in my opinion.
Torsten, I understand your frustration very well. My theory is the most read on this forum and is received with indifference among those who seem to know something about this codex. Only time will judge.
Antonio, undoubtedly one reason for people's indifference towards your approach is the fact that there is no way in which it can be checked, either positively (confirmed) or negatively (disproven). This is the infamous 'unfalsifiable' that was mentioned quite a bit recently.
The best that most people can do is say: "perhaps" or "I don't think so".
This does not lead to great discussion.
Now you have this advantage over people proposing relatively simple ciphers and a specific plain text language. For them, there is considerable evidence against their theories. When this evidence is rejected by the proposer (for whatever reason) it also leads to a slow-down of discussion.
Except when people are provoked, typically by grand claims.
This suggests that you could trigger more discussion by making such grand claims, but I really appreciate that you are not doing that.
[
attachment=9025]
[
attachment=9026]
[
attachment=9027]
I can certainly understand Torsten's criticism and scepticism.
I have watched the video again.
If I compare one of Lisa's arguments with the VM text, it just doesn't fit together. Differences in one character. Which in the VM would mean that the writers took turns in 2 words.
But I can't imagine that this is her only argument either.
As far as I'm concerned, it has nothing to do with writing tolerance. That's why there are already 5 gallows signs and not 4.
So Torsten's thought is justified.
Furthermore, if the differences (green) are already so striking. Why should I believe that it is different with (red)? Now there are already 6 gallows signs.
What about (blue)? Yes, it has too. Just not so easy to see. That makes 8 gallows signs.
How am I supposed to evaluate statistics if half of them are already wrong in the input?
The rule: Out of sight out of mind.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
I think the third image isn't the best choice for arguing there is a difference between the /k/ glyphs: the two in it that correspond to our more regular /k/ have a descender immediately above them, while the two that are a little taller/more ornate have more open space above them. Just on the image alone, you could argue the /k/ glyphs are the same but the taller are used when there is more space. I think there are examples elsewhere that contradict this.
"I think the third image isn't the best choice for arguing there is a difference between the /k/ glyphs:"
Are you blind?
Let's not use such phrases, Mr. Tentakulus. Ad hominems only lead to unpleasantness. You can do better than that.
Yes, you're right Koen.
Ergo, in friendly and simple words.
If someone can't see the difference between an ‘f’ and a ‘t’ and ‘u’ and ‘v’, then they simply can't read and write. But that is the basic requirement for text.
So there's no need for any further discussion.
If that's friendly, then I'm glad we're not arguing here...
I'm not sure what I said to provoke these two responses. I'm not even disagreeing with you that what we commonly refer to /k/ may encompass a range of subtle distinctions that represent different sounds, and even if I were disagreeing, it's not helping your case to call me blind or illiterate. Plenty of people think the differences are likely not meaningful.
I'm not saying that; I'm simply saying the third does not seem an ideal example, for the reason I put above. What am I missing?