Theory-building and data collection: let's talk about - Printable Version +- 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: Theory-building and data collection: let's talk about (/thread-1682.html)

Theory-building and data collection: let's talk about - Diane - 21-03-2017 Tried to start this conversation in another thread, but it got tangled with other stuff. N.B> This is not about people; not about anyone's work; not about personal picture archives.  Given that what is being termed 'data-collection' isn't so much - more a typing in of search parameters to the catalogue of a pictorial archive - how do we ensure we don't mislead those who might rely on our work in doing their own? Important consideration, I think.  So I'd like to talk a bit about formulating a method to keep it reasonably rigorous, and avoid 'collecting data' for nothing more than providing retrospective support for a theory that might have been floating about - quite unsupported and insupportably - for decades, or even since 1912. But if we don't already think we know what a picture is intended to say, and intended to represent, it is impossible to ask the data base to return us the matches we want it to. It's rather  like having an archive of all known language recordings - catalogued by name, date and time of recording - when the user has only English and no deep acquaintance with the science of linguistics. Linguistics is a science in the strict sense; iconography isn't a science in that sense and putting queries into cataloguing systems like Iconoclass doesn't make the 'matches' raw scientific data. Scientific data is verifiable and thus its potential for being proven false.  There are all sorts of issues with the notion that those archive catalogues are appropriate to study of the Vms imagery, including the purpose for which those archives-and-catalogue were developed.  Very limited charter; similarly limited range; categories reflecting that initial purpose... Still, better an example of the problem, so we can start talking method for solution f. 67v (Yep, the bearded sun again) What parameters  - what date range?  Can't say 'fifteenth century' when the task is to provide the manuscript's imagery - just the imagery - with a correct provenance and history.  And those are what matter - not when the manuscript was made, but where and when the content was first made. No date. Subject matter? Objects? Well, I think 'sun' is fairly general.  Let's agree on 'sun' Details. Would you say this is a male, or  female sun?  Relevant or irrelevant?  Image reflects language... female suns are not all that common... could be important for those working on the written text to know .. But let's suppose we add 'male' to description of the picture. What about the crossed eyes?  Important criterion, or not?  Could be a vital indicator of some particular culture's attitude towards the sun.  Could be an accident, too, just some old scribe with shaky hands.   Do we include 'eyes crossed' in the search parameters... or not?.  What about the artificial beard?  Mention that?  Yes/No?  Why/why not? But let's suppose you've run two or three refining searches and ended up with just "500BC - 1912 AD"; "male face"; "false beard"' "squint-eyed" Do we accept this?  Why not?*  * ... apart from its being a modern reproduction of a traditional form. RE: Theory-building and data collection: let's talk about - R. Sale - 22-03-2017 First I see this as an ongoing process subject to revision and expansion, not the final report on a fait acompli. The evidence continues to trickle in. Data collection promotes a fact based investigation. And when enough evidence accumulates, for some more so than for others, there are conclusions to be drawn and opinions to be stated. The next matter is to consider the standards of evidence and, other than to put in a suggestion for Deuteronomy, that is a matter that has generally been honest and mostly accurate. And I certainly agree with Diane''s comment: "But if we don't already think we know what a picture is intended to say, and intended to represent, it is impossible to ask the data base to return us the matches we want it to"  And my example is the years of - albeit casual - VMs investigation *before* I discovered the name and the pattern identity of the traditional heraldic fur known as papelonny. It was the difference between night and day to discover its existence and to understand the intentional placement in VMs Pisces and Dark Aries. Group data collection appears to provide a helpful set of examples in the investigation of cloud bands. Setting the florid, scallop-shell patterned cloud bands of the Apocalypse tapestry and the works of de Pizan aside, for a moment, it appears that the types of patterns used to compose these cloud bands where they occur in medieval illustrations, have been shown to be highly individualistic. However, there is this scallop-shell group and among them, there is this single example in the illustration of the cosmos from Oresme. The comparison of the Oresme cosmos with the VMs illustration of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was made back in 2014 (E. Velinska). This identification relies mostly on the similarity of the earthly sphere and the starry surroundings and less on the circular boundary line, which in the Oresme illustration is an elaborate blue and white scallop-shell design, while in the VMs it is only a plain ink line. Later investigations by Don of Tallahassee pointed out an interesting banded pattern in the VMs central rosette, just outside the circular band of text. This is a design very much in accord with the scallop-shell pattern. The similarities are so strong, IMO, that putting this cloud band pattern around the central image of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. would enhance the original comparison to being second to no other cosmic illustration as a potential reproduction of this Oresme model. But, in the VMs of course, these items are separated, not united. One thing it does show is that the artist did not lack the knowledge or the talent or the choice to do this. Is separation viable? Does strong similarity in the details go unnoticed and count for nothing?  And what is the reason for separation? Can Oresme's cosmos be rebuilt with VMs parts? Separation is disguise and it is also obfuscation. And despite compelling appearances, the VMs is also a text that has been formulated as a cultural artifact but is not the artifact of an actual, historical cultural entity like a tribe or a civilization of some type. Culture V* does not exist. An amalgamated text has been created as a facade behind which the parts of the cosmos, paired papelonny insignia and the origins of church tradition have been hidden. Intentional disguise reveals purpose, IMO. Data collection helps build interesting theories. It is my theory, that the person who created the VMs, was well attuned to the relevant details of that time, so closely that the details of the Oresme cosmos could be recognized. And this person had the sophisticated knowledge of heraldry sufficient to do heraldic canting. But among the educated of that time and place, such would not be any sort of unusual information. Whereas, presently the details escape comparison because their sources have not been acknowledged.  Maybe that will start to change. Let the data speak for itself. RE: Theory-building and data collection: let's talk about - Davidsch - 23-03-2017 It's all a lot of general talk and a lot of words,  but I do not see a question or a topic on which to discuss, it smells more like a monologue of you both. That's ok, but better mention that in the header: it saves me a lot of reading. RE: Theory-building and data collection: let's talk about - Diane - 24-03-2017 Davisch I see your point.  Mine was that  what is being called "data collection" as if it were raw data from which (one day) to form a theory, is actually heavily biased by the existing theories which are informing the search-parameters.  The "data collection" is thus just a form of theory-building after all.  What can we do about it? Two important principles, I think are:- Looking like isn't the same as being like and Being like doesn't necessarily mean looking like.    As example - . 1. (from a post to appear soon..)  Appearance but no substance to the 'matches'   2. (from post published today)  You can produce whatever 'match' you want by pairing these off. One is pure form; one is common substance; one is common source...   How do we stop wasting time trying to justify old fictions after the fact? RE: Theory-building and data collection: let's talk about - Davidsch - 24-03-2017 Yes, I agree. Another example: this herb looks like that herb, because the leaves are the same, although the flowers are not similara and the root is longer.  The name is probably x or y or z.  So, what does it help us? Nothing. Sure! it is fun to browse through ms and Dioscordides-like drawings, but it is not really relevant in the decryption to endlessly discuss  all the possibilities  if it is obvious that for 2000 years the determination produces NOT 1 definitive result. Look at all the synonyms and different drawings for 1 plant in the Materia Medica copies and derivatives. From the perspective of the text however I think it is still relevant to investigate old manuscripts and their text. But in order to compare it with the VMS two things have to be done: * transcribe old similar corpora (greek, latin, german, english etc.) * understand old text and transpose it on the VMS text (the secret lies in how to do that of course) Fact is that the majority of the people is too lazy, and also most people are not interested in it. Here on ninja, roughly I count 5 or 6 people interested in old corpora. That is a real pity, because finally it all boils down to ....... text. RE: Theory-building and data collection: let's talk about - R. Sale - 24-03-2017 Well, I agree. And then I disagree. The problem with the false analogy is that it only proves the flaws within itself. It does not prove that all analogies are flawed. Now I grant you that many of the ideas put forward are deemed to be flawed by current opinion. Flawed is practically an automatic reaction here, but that still does does not apply to all analogies. The comparison with Oresme's cosmos still stands on its own and is made even stronger and more interesting by subsequent investigations. Is separation a non-starter for some? Is it the intentional creation of ambiguity through deception and maintaining identity through detail and position? As far as the VMs plant investigations go, I have little to say. All I know is the old saying, "Gold is where you find it." I'm sure these people are knowledgeable investigators, but it doesn't matter how good they are at digging holes; if there is no gold there, no gold will be found. Method is not a significant difficulty. Location is the problem. The botanical sections have created some interesting discussions. However they have not provided anything solid in the way linguistic information to help understand what is written, assuming that is possible. There is no gold to be found here. Gold is where you find it in a natural environment. But the VMs is a human artifact. And in a human artifact, gold is - where the author left it, assuming they were the kind to do that sort of thing. Tucked away in this manuscript of disorientation are subtle bits of reality. Several bits of gold are the parts of Oresme's cosmos. This would have been something that occurred several decades prior to the VMs creation at a minimum. If the VMs author was literate, that would be membership in an exclusive group. But among that group there would be a certain currency of knowledge and information that is perceived in detail. This is not, IMO, a situation that requires a deep historical knowledge of various images, though this is helpful, as much as it does require the perspective that is contemporary with the time of VMs creation. How does one recreate Oresme's cosmos with VMs parts, if we can't find the parts. How do we recognize the origins of the tradition of the red galero, if we don't know who started it? Begun before 1250 CE, well before VMs parchment, this is essentially common knowledge in church history at the time of VMs creation. How do we evaluate the impact of the use and placement of paired papelonny patterns, if we don't know what this traditional heraldic fur looks like, what it is called or where to find it? Heraldry is also common information among the educated at this time, including the use of canting.  There are two hangups: 1) Time has allowed this data to become irrelevant to modern minds. 2) The author has intentionally obscured certain data from those that were contemporary to that time. Fortunately, with data collection, if we find the right data, the Oresme cosmos, the right cloud bands, etc., then theories can be formulated that may help our understanding and give some indication of a way forward. Or if all analogies are flawed, might as well hang it up now. But first one might ask whether problems arise from the limitations of perception. Oh yes, they do indeed.