+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Questions needed for Stephen Bax interview (/thread-2066.html)
RE: Questions needed for Stephen Bax interview - nickpelling - 15-09-2017
(15-09-2017, 12:46 PM)Stephen.Bax Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote pid='16309' dateline='1503839720']
UM, I am going to be completely blunt back agan. Do you know any theory or idea about the Voynich which is NOT controversial or unproven? Even the carbon dating is contested! From day one I have also made it clear that my discussions are provisional and partial.
[/quote]
Almost no notions about the Voynich Manuscript that get put forward in and of themselves give rise to controversy: the recent furore about Nicholas Gibbs wasn't at all about his ideas, but rather about the way that the TLS (misre)presented them as fact, and about the way that Wikipedia editors immediately deemed his ideas notable (and hence worthy of immediate inclusion). Hence I don't really see "controversial" as being a very productive or revealing test here.
I similarly don't see "unproven" as a useful heuristic: if that is intended as the opposite of "proven beyond all practical doubt", it's a set that is empty beyond a handful of mathematical tautologies.
And however "provisional and partial" your discussions are, it hasn't stopped you from promoting them, though without any obvious evidential backup.
So I'm not hearing much of an argument here.
RE: Questions needed for Stephen Bax interview - -JKP- - 15-09-2017
(15-09-2017, 12:46 PM)Stephen.Bax Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-08-2017, 02:15 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think what you are doing is GREAT, great work, very interesting and a good direction and I think your choice of the first person to interview was a good one.
But I'm going to be completely blunt here...
Since his views on the manuscript are controversial and unproven, I would rather see Stephen Bax in a debate with someone with a good reputation who holds different views from his than to see a question-answer format interview with SB.
I think it would be of greater benefit to the community and to Voynich research in general if the format chosen acknowledges whether the person's contributions are substantive (a curator or someone close to the history of the manuscript itself is a good choice because he or she has hands-on knowledge of the physical properties that most of us can never have) or speculative (in which case a debate or panel format with two to four people is far more likely to yield useful insights than giving a platform to an individual).
Unfortunately, the mere act of interviewing someone whose ideas are unproven, and sometimes strongly contested, seems to give that person a certain amount of "credibility by association" and you have to ask yourself whether that's the best way to use the time and resources of the Voynich community, and whether it will bring out information that furthers Voynich research. When it comes to unproven theories I think a panel format of people with a variety of views is more likely to be beneficial.
UM, I am going to be completely blunt back agan. Do you know any theory or idea about the Voynich which is NOT controversial or unproven? Even the carbon dating is contested! From day one I have also made it clear that my discussions are provisional and partial.
I am happy to discuss them with anyone at all, on any panel. But if you exclude from that panel anyone who has an idea which is 'controversial' or 'unproven', you will be sitting for a long time looking at a row of empty chairs.
Stephen Bax
That's exactly my point, Stephen. I think they are all controversial and unproven and that's why I think a panel format would be more informative than an interview with one person who has an unproven theory. Whether anyone's discussions were "provisional and partial" is irrelevant. Most of them are.
If the questions are about something that an expert can illuminate, like how the carbon dating works, or how certain things are studied or preserved, or how paleography is conducted, or how pigments were found and mixed in the 15th century, or how parchment was made, for example, I see no problem with interviewing an expert on the subject. If, however, the content is controversial or unproven, then a panel is, in my opinion, a better format.
RE: Questions needed for Stephen Bax interview - VViews - 15-09-2017
(15-09-2017, 07:37 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the questions are about something that an expert can illuminate, like how the carbon dating works, or how certain things are studied or preserved, or how paleography is conducted, or how pigments were found and mixed in the 15th century, or how parchment was made, for example, I see no problem with interviewing an expert on the subject. If, however, the content is controversial or unproven, then a panel is, in my opinion, a better format.
I agree 100% with this.
RE: Questions needed for Stephen Bax interview - Anton - 15-09-2017
Well, I think the panel is a good idea, and although it meets quite a number of practical issues, maybe our "Voynich TV team" will once find it possible to arrange it in one form or another.
As for the interview with Prof. Bax, I enjoyed it very much and would like to thank Stephen, and of course David and Koen as well. Although some say that it turned to be lengthy, I see it rather as an advantage: it's not like those radio broadcasts where everyone is ever short of time (which uses to run out in the least appropriate moment).
The interview is found here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Thank you very much everyone who has suggested questions! I now close this thread and we're looking forward to next videos in the series
