+- 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: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions (/thread-2041.html)
RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - nickpelling - 13-08-2017
There's a big difference between argument thinking and theory thinking: one is what you would like to see, the other is what you actually get.
No prizes for guessing which is which.
RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - R. Sale - 13-08-2017
Another interesting discussion, which ties in with the prior consideration of 'Conventions'. Surely some use of 'conventions' is necessary for current research. I mean, what a surprise to find out that two investigations using different terminology really are dealing with the same topic. Conventions are necessary for communication. But then there is the problem of whether conventions can be modified and allowed to evolve, or they need to held in a static tradition.
However, beyond their use in current research, conventions are necessary for communication between author and reader. If author and reader share no common conventions, there can be no communication. Of course, the reader is free to embark on a process of exploration and self-education in regard to the author's use of conventions. And such a venture, for various individuals, will result in a variety of outcomes - all over the place. Thus we have Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - or, shall we say *proposed* solutions.
This is a forum for general VMs discussion and that includes the introduction of proposed solutions and their consideration by other forum participants. It is the intended and perceived purpose of the forum to discuss and evaluate the proposed solutions - and that is where the problems start.
What does one say to a person who insists on using the EVA as an actual, infallible guide to the phonetic interpretation of VMs glyphs? One might explain that the suggestion of a relationship is invalid. And what they do after that is their business. But I also tend to behave in the manner Koen suggested. If I am uninformed or I have no interest or opinion on a particular matter, I do not participate. And apparently I am much less widely informed and diversely interested on all things VMs.
Voynich theories are intended to produce Voynich solutions. However this is where a fundamental, procedural truism applies and that is: Garbage in; garbage out. If the theories applied are flawed, the resulting solution will be faulty as well. So this is where the discovery and investigation of conventions comes to the fore. In the effort to develop a valid theory, it is necessary to understand and to explore the conventions used in the VMs. And it is necessary to validate those conventions based on cultural history and tradition. All the more so in the VMs because clear indicators have been suppressed in order to create a situation where more subtle examples of conventional images can be placed in a manner that is less than glaringly obvious. Examples include the inner part of an Oresme version of the cosmos, the use of the nebuly line, the presence of a scallop-shell patterned cloud band, the use of heraldry in both its armorial and ecclesiastical forms and so on. These are all historically and traditionally validated, chronologically appropriate conventions contained in the VMs. Unfortunately, these same examples, familiar to and used by the VMs author, have escaped the notice of many investigators.
What happens when the reader does not share the author's knowledge and familiarity with these conventions? What happens to Voynich theory when valid conventions are omitted or subjectively excluded from consideration? It would be nice to say something like that was then and this is now. However, it seems to me, for the most part, that we're still stuck with then.
RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - ReneZ - 14-08-2017
My initial post, and my aim for this thread, was not to single out any particular theory, but to point out some generic issues.
When talking about arguments, rather than theories, it becomes a bit more difficult to remain generic, but there are still some important points. All of the following is based on being involved in Voynich discussions of all nature for over 2 decades.
Arguments are of course what most discussions are made of.
Arguments can be valid, invalid, and everything in between.
(Probably valid, possibly valid, unknown, unprovable, largely invalid, etc).
Most often it is not known whether arguments are valid, and it is a matter of opinion. This usually gives rise to discussions that do not come to any conclusion.
More valid arguments are those based on evidence, records.
Less valid arguments include:
- points that are factually incorrect
- opinions that have been formulated to appear as fact (happens a lot!!)
And, of course, arguments can be built in order to support a theory. These are not invalid a priori, but stand a good chance of being invalid. This is particularly the case for the 'group 3' theories in the opening post:
since there usually is no good evidence for any of these theories, they tend to build on arguments.
To make matters even more interesting, everything that can be said about arguments, also applies to 'counter-arguments', meaning statement like:
"Your argument is wrong because of (this or that)".
Some typical cases that occur not infrequently:
1) A theory is brought forward supported by some arguments.
These are countered by some counter-arguments, which go into the direction: that cannot be true, or could not have happened. This prompts the reaction that these counter-arguments need to be proven, which is usually impossible.
The discussion should never be: prove that I am wrong.
After all, the original argument was that something is proposed as likely to be true, not that it is hypothetically possible to be true.
2) Arguments in favour of a certain theory are brought forward.
These are not valid, but it requires very specific familiarity with the topic to be able to judge that.
99% of people who are only generally familiar with the MS cannot follow it, and even among those who are very familiar, there are only a handful who can really understand it (or even care).
A typical case of point 2 was mentioned earlier by Koen, namely issues related to the Marci letter.
There are actually two such issues, and the argument applies to both of them.
One is that the letter cannot be believed because Marci lost his memory when he wrote it.
The other is that the letter is a modern fake by Voynich.
These, and other arguments are not only brought forward to support a specific theory, but also to suggest that a lot of "knowledge" about the MS is supposedly not correct.
Rejecting them is possible, but requires patience and attention by the reader.
And again it becomes a case of the question: whom are we trying to convince:
- the proponent of the argument often (usually?) does not want to be convinced
- the people who are familiar with the topic already understand
RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - Emma May Smith - 14-08-2017
I can't help but think that part of the problem is the mismatch in attention given to serious but unspectacular work and wild solutions. If you propose something, however small and useful, you might only reach a few other researchers. Yet if you come up with the most rash and worthless theory you'll get oodles of attention and interviewed on television. Thus serious researchers might feel tempted to 'dress up' their work to get a bit more attention, while wild theorists will defend their work fiercely just to maintain the attention that they have received.
For example, you can come up with a pretty half-arsed piece of work one year (say, 2014) and still be a well-known name three years later despite having been disproven and failing to make any further advance.
RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - nickpelling - 14-08-2017
What kind of a dumb axeman would do that?
RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - R. Sale - 14-08-2017
This is starting to take on hints of a course in medieval theological disputation. First there is a statement, then the arguments in favor, followed by the arguments against, then a rebuttal of the arguments against and, finally, the desired conclusion. This is probably a good thing. The problem is with the arguments. And the problem with the arguments relates to the matter of evidence. What is evidence? What is seen as constituting evidence? What are the standards applied by the person making that decision. According to Deuteronomy, the establishment of evidence requires the testimony of two or more witnesses. But in the history of disputation, a *good* argument is not always validated by the facts.
Furthermore, I think there has been a certain change in the standards of evidence from medieval times to the modern day. Present day standards have risen to the point where ninety-nine and a half just won't do. Proof must be absolute. That is fine for present day interpretations, but applying it retroactively may be overly demanding. An image suggesting a certain identification does not need to be photographic in order to convey the intended meaning.
Worse than that, the VMs seems to be something of an attempt to discover how far away from this *photographic* reality an illustration can get and still convey the intended meaning.
The evidence I try to follow comes from the pages of the VMs. And then it has to correspond with historical facts and traditions.
Can Oresme's cosmos be reassembled with VMs parts? Do the Pisces tub patterns represent heraldry? What are the historical origins of the red galero tradition?
I believe that the details in the VMs provide the evidence to answer these questions. The difficulty in formulating evidence based theories depends on whether the researcher is able to ask these questions in the first place. I'm not saying it's easy. The difficulty starts at moderate and goes up from there. One needs to know the details of the Oresme illustration, rather obscure heraldic patterns like a semy of roundels or papelonny and so on. And the author adds to the obfuscation in several ways - because the author already knows this stuff and figures that the reader knows it too [[Wrong!]] so a bit of trickery has been used, an optical illusion - that sort of thing. But ambiguity is not the same as negation and denial. Both parts of the cosmos are presented, just not on the same page. Other confirmations have been included. It depends on the interpretation of the evidence on the page. Does the data convey meaning? If it does, it may help to form the basis for a VMs theory.
RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - nickpelling - 15-08-2017
Perhaps I should have included followers of the Ars Alembica too. *sigh*
RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - Torsten - 17-08-2017
(12-08-2017, 08:39 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No Voynich theorist has ever accepted that evidence X or logical disproof Y has disproved his or her pet theory. Trying to do so is therefore a waste of time.
The only sensible research avenue is to try to uncover links between pages or sections of the Voynich and other manuscripts, to work out how the two are connected. Everything else is just vanity and noise.
Do you really assert that your point of view is the only one possible and moreover that it is a waste of time to discuss the ideas of others?
RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - nickpelling - 17-08-2017
(17-08-2017, 02:18 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you really assert that your point of view is the only one possible and moreover that it is a waste of time to discuss the ideas of others?
My point of view is my point of view, and only if everyone else were to suddenly die of the Plague would it be the only one possible. :-)
Discussing the ideas of others has largely proved to be a waste of my time, but feel free to spend your time how you like. :-)
RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - Koen G - 17-08-2017
I'm sure others think discussing the ideas of Nick Pelling is a waste of time. I don't see much difference really, since nobody has much to show at this point.