The Voynich Ninja

(06-11-2025, 11:38 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks for the clarification, Rene.  But does that rule out this alternative history?

For me, that is an invalid approach, and one that is followed only too often by Voynich theorists - especially, but not only, people proposing solutions. It can be quite plain in sight, and it can be more subtle.
But it does not work like this:

- I have this theory
- Prove me wrong
- If you can't, I win

(There are lots of other fallacies but I don't want to digress).
 
People reading this thread will hopefully have noticed that I advocate going by evidence, and I make an effort to present evidence of everything I argue about.

Just as an example:

(06-11-2025, 11:38 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. (1911) Voynich gets hold of the Marci letter, somehow, somewhere.

So the question is raised how and where.
The available evidence suggests a clear and straightforward way. No need to repeat it.
For any alternative way, there is no evidence. 
For the suggestion that this letter should be a fake by Voynich, there is also no evidence.

In the 'old days', there was just the Voynich MS and its only reference, the Marci letter, both in the hands of Voynich. They did exist in a vacuum. There was no known reference to either of them.
In that scenario, one could consider that these were both fakes.
They had no context.
In fact, I did consider this myself. This very question is one of the reasons why I became interested in how Voynich obtained it.

Now, the situation has completely changed. The conditions where and how Voynich obtained the MS are known in detail. Why he lied about this 'discovery' is fully understood. 
Everything in the Marci letter that can be checked has been confirmed to fit known facts.
(It took decades to uncover all that).

(06-11-2025, 06:02 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think your dedication to the theory that it is an authentic 15th century creation

@asteckley, I am sorry, but you have lost me definitely now.

To be quite blunt:

1) The 15th century creation of the Voynich MS is not a theory. That line is just rhetoric by Rich. It is the default, and any alternative needs solid evidence.

2) I am not dedicated to any theory. I have asked the question myself, and I follow the evidence.

(06-11-2025, 08:25 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I cannot put this online due to copyright, but I can send out a few copies to interested people (PM me) as fair use.

I did not get any, but will continue to keep an eye on it. 
This tells me that this is not a topic of great interest, and I will gladly step away from this discussion now (again   ).

(07-11-2025, 01:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The 15th century creation of the Voynich MS is not a theory. That line is just rhetoric by Rich. It is the default, and any alternative needs solid evidence.

This argument by Rich misuses or misunderstands the various definitions of the word "theory". It is straight from the pseudoscientist's playbook. "Evolution is just a theory!"


From Wikipedia:

Quote:In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science [...] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.

Darwin's theory of evolution is the first kind. Since its inception, it has been changed, improved, added to... as is expected in the natural sciences.
Rich's theory is of the second type, "something that is unproven or speculative".

Assuming that something is an authentic version of itself is not a theory of any kind.

(07-11-2025, 01:08 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- I have this theory
- Prove me wrong
- If you can't, I win

That is not what I mean.  The last line is "If you can't, then my theory remains possible".

(07-11-2025, 01:08 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The available evidence suggests a clear and straightforward way [for Voynich to have obtained the Marci letter]. No need to repeat it.  For any alternative way, there is no evidence

Apologies for insisting, but isn't that "evidence" just statements by Voynich that the letter was attached to the VMS that we know?   I read your extensive site, but it is a lot to take in.  If the answer is in there, I missed it, sorry.  Could you please point it out again? 

When discussing the possibility that someone cheated, we must demand more than the usual level of evidence -- because we should assume that the cheater tried to forge or twist any evidence that he could.  

Again, I don't think that either Rich's "Voynich Forgery" theory  or my "Book Switch" theory are likely.  I still believe that the Marci letter is genuine and that the book that Marci sent to Kircher is BL MS 408.  And even if it turns out that it was a different book, that will not change my views of my interest in BL MS 408.  For me, this side issue is interesting only because I find stories of frauds and forgeries most entertaining...

All the best, --stolfi

(07-11-2025, 01:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-11-2025, 06:02 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think your dedication to the theory that it is an authentic 15th century creation

@asteckley, I am sorry, but you have lost me definitely now.

To be quite blunt:

1) The 15th century creation of the Voynich MS is not a theory. That line is just rhetoric by Rich. It is the default, and any alternative needs solid evidence.

2) I am not dedicated to any theory. I have asked the question myself, and I follow the evidence.

Well in a way this is correct that the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal theory is considered by many "the default", but my point is that this is not a good thing in any way, and should not, and does not, deserve to be projected or accepted as such. It is clearly the current paradigm, but my point is that by projecting it as such is needs and uses unscientific methods, and ignores realities about it:

1) It is unfounded, as it has poor supporting evidence and many flaws
2) Can only exist by ignoring, dismissing under weak premises a great deal of evidence against it
3) Needs to use fallacious arguments to support it, among them, but not limited to, "Argument by Authority" (except when an "authority" counters it), Cherry Picking, Straw Man arguments, misstatement of alternate views, demonization of alternate views ("Flat Earth", "rhetoric", etc.), limiting the narrative to exclude alternate views, publishing incorrect information dismissing alternate views (Stringer Voynich Book's introduction, "Forgery has been disproven", when it is anything but, "the ink is perfect", etc.)
4) Controlling and limiting the availability to data and images, only releasing favorable opinions of that data (the C14 results, for over ten years, as an example)

Point(s) being, if it is considered by you or anyone as "the default" theory, it may be, but should not be, it does not deserve that label. As I often do, I recommend "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn describes and explains why paradigms form, how they are defended, why they often exist when they don't really "deserve" to exist, how they deal with challenges... and not always in a scientific way, but often using fallacies as I have listed above. The "fits and starts" progression of science is not linear, it forms paradigms which are created, defended, challenged, and if the challenge fails, it continues. If the challenge succeeds, it falls, and a "New Paradigm" is created.

Which is all valid, it is the way this works in science. I and others challenge the paradigm, and elements of it, and those who are within the paradigm defend it. To attempt to class this paradigm as "the default" is just another method of defence, it is what helps paradigms react to challenges, creating the false impression that there is some especial reason it SHOULD be the default, when on critical analysis, there really is no scientific reason that should be so.

It should be seen as the theory/hypothesis/suggestion, W/E, that it really is, so that people will realize they are free to really investigate and discuss it. That would be a more productive process, IMO, and one that I follow, in practice.

(07-11-2025, 02:25 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-11-2025, 01:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The 15th century creation of the Voynich MS is not a theory. That line is just rhetoric by Rich. It is the default, and any alternative needs solid evidence.

This argument by Rich misuses or misunderstands the various definitions of the word "theory". It is straight from the pseudoscientist's playbook. "Evolution is just a theory!"

From Wikipedia:

Quote:In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science [...] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.

Darwin's theory of evolution is the first kind. Since its inception, it has been changed, improved, added to... as is expected in the natural sciences.
Rich's theory is of the second type, "something that is unproven or speculative".

Assuming that something is an authentic version of itself is not a theory of any kind.

Hi Koen: It is a form of argument to use semantics in order to dismiss alternate, challenging ideas, and in this case it is often done. Yes, of course there are many different ways to describe our alternate ideas, based on many contexts, such as whether we are referring to an overall concept using varying levels and strengths of evidence, or looking at supporting or opposing views, or looking purely at speculative ideas about both, and on and on.

Any claim can therefore be dismissed or accepted by using semantics. It has been used for the issue of theory/hypothesis/idea/suggestion/speculation/fact and so on, very often, as you have done here. It has been used to dismiss forgery arguments by alternating accepting or dismissing them based on the technical definitions and distinctions between fake/forgery/hoax/parody/replica/homage, it was used several times to charge my use of "belief" meant that my ideas were religious and not scientific, and on and on and on.

But the thing is, by now we all very well know exactly what we are each claiming, and why. So it is a practical convenience in this, and all human discourse, to use terms mutually understandable to all, because language would literally grind to a halt if each and every time one had to carefully explain what definition they meant by the word they used, and then, use alternate, but similar language to then "properly" describe the next statement, and so and so forth.

The terms "theory" and "fake" and "genuine" perfectly describe what we all know to be true about each other's "ideas", and using a microscope to dissect the precise meaning of each only stalls and confuses that understanding, I think.

(07-11-2025, 01:20 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-11-2025, 08:25 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I cannot put this online due to copyright, but I can send out a few copies to interested people (PM me) as fair use.

I did not get any, but will continue to keep an eye on it. 
This tells me that this is not a topic of great interest, and I will gladly step away from this discussion now (again   ).

Hi Rene: The offer was appreciated, probably by all, but for myself, personally, I didn't respond to your offer for these reasons: You know, as we have discussed in private, that I am also very familiar with the Archaic Mark investigation and results. In fact, I think you brought it to my attention.

But also, I don't at all consider it relevant to the discussion of forgery/genuine as applies to the Voynich, or really any other such question about other items, not in the sense that you seem to be using it, at least. This, because I reject the claim that... and I am paraphrasing and reducing it here, correct me if I am inaccurate, "Since we found forgery C, or D, or E, by finding these problems, this means the Voynich must be real, because the Voynich does not have these problems".

But, among others, this is an argument of omission... because the Voynich has problem of anachronism and anomolies which may or may not be in the Archaic Mark, or any other forgery. And many forgeries DID use some or many or all perfect materials, and were only discovered by problems with others, or for other reasons. For instance, for ink alone, Mark Hofmann (Oath of a Freeman), Eric Hebborn (Old Master drawings), the Michigan Galileo, and many others, all used perfectly imitated inks for the era the forgers desired. So really, the Voynich ink is not even as good as the ink of these forgers.

So you or I finding and tallying up all the cases of other, unrelated cases of forgery, in order to somehow attempt to claim they have any power of determining whether or not the Voynich is fake or real, is not helpful to either case. We both know perfect materials can and have been used in forgeries, or should know, and this then obviates their use in either of our cases.

(07-11-2025, 01:08 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So the question is raised how and where.
The available evidence suggests a clear and straightforward way. No need to repeat it.

About "how and where": there is a need to repeat it, especially in scientific publications, because fake stories get repeated so much that they remain the default, in saecula saeculorum, if nothing is done to rectify them.

I tried to add a sentence on Wikipedia challenging the villa Mondragone story, with the source of the alternate story from your website: it was reverted because many more sources mention villa Mondragone, so it must be the One True Story...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-11-2025, 03:26 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[From Wikipedia:]
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science [...] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.

I checked Wikipedia, and that definition of "theory" cites no references. 

While that may be the ideal definition of the term, even scientists often use "theory" as a synonym of "conjecture", or as a shorthand for "proposed theory".  As in "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.",  etc.

(And "hypothesis" is not the same thing as "conjecture".  Strictly speaking, a hypothesis is a statement that one is accepting as true during a discussion or demonstration -- whether it is actually true or not, proved or not.)

All the best, --stolfi