+- 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: History of the study (/thread-2545.html)
History of the study - Diane - 11-11-2018
Could the moderators consider a separate thread devoted to sources for the history of Voynich studies? Say... 1912- 2012?
For example,
At the moment I have two questions which relate to past writings:
1). Anyone know what has happened to Brigadier Tiltman's paper about the manuscript. ( used to be at the NSA website as a pdf).
2) I'm trying to find the point where doubt was first cast on Wilfrid's description of the text as in cipher. Following through Jim Reeds' Bibliography (here), it looks to me as if either Tiltman and Friedman began to have doubts very late in their involvement (though Nick Pelling disputes my reading of that passage), or that perhaps Jorge Stolfi's linguistic and statistical analysis really broke the model of beliefs till then.
Access to primary sources and documents is all that's needed for a thread about the study's history. A cut-off at 2012 would be neat, and would make clear the line between the history of the study and current thinking.
Thanks.
RE: History of the study - -JKP- - 11-11-2018
I think a history thread is a good idea, but I'm wondering what the rationale is for a 2012 cutoff? It seems a bit recent to me but perhaps you have reasons for specifically choosing this?
RE: History of the study - Diane - 12-11-2018
-JKP -
For it to be a history, rather than discussion of current thinking, it needs a definite cut-off, and the first century of study seems a fair one.
Besides, even to offer a critical evaluation dead people's ideas can bring storms of protest in this study (I was once met with deeply offended expressions of censure for daring to doubt 'the word of a nobleman' when I said I thought the alleged rumour, allegedly passed on by Mnishovsky was given more weight than it merited.)
So imagine trying to write a detailed critique of things said and written by current members. I expect my 'warning' level would rocket to 100% in the first two posts.
RE: History of the study - Diane - 12-11-2018
-JKP -
Seriously though, the aim is to map the way the study got to its present state and current 'givens'.
If meticulously documented, it would allow newcomers, especially, to return and examine the first premises by being directed to the person/s who first contributed a given insight, or who developed a body of research on a particular topic.
Might save the constant re-invention of wheels, if nothing else.
RE: History of the study - -JKP- - 12-11-2018
Are you thinking of a list of resources or a list of resources with discussions on each one?
Most Voynich history is bunk, in my opinion. Most of the theories are wrong and much of what has been written is trash, partly because the people writing it weren't as lucky as we are (access to the Internet) and partly because there's a lot of faulty logic and poor scholarship.
VMS history won't be of much use to newcomers unless there's at least something to steer them toward the more credible sources.
RE: History of the study - ReneZ - 12-11-2018
Real historical research involves a lot of reading, and going into libraries and archives. While the internet is gradually providing more and more access to these, this is still desperately incomplete.
Here's a starting point for the most important voynich-related archives:
This is also not complete.
Without heaving seen any of this material, no useful history of research can be written.
I am only aware of a handful of people (in the Voynich amateur community) who have seen parts of it.
RE: History of the study - -JKP- - 12-11-2018
I agree. The information that is not online is vast. We haven't scratched the surface.
RE: History of the study - Diane - 13-11-2018
-JKP -
I absolutely agree with you that most Voynich theories - purporting to be 'history'-narratives - would never pass peer review. (i.e. by historians specialising in the period's political, economic and social history).
So I gather you agree with my proposal? The forum should have a separate heading for those sort of discussions?
I know, of course, that Rene has a very big website but forums are more neutral spaces and here we can pose research questions and debate older ideas - not possible on a website, and a bit awkward on a blog.
Here are a couple of recent questions I would have put on a thread of that sort today, if it were there to post to:
Q: After 1912 who was the first person NOT to automatically repeat Wilfrid's assertion about a 'cipher-text'?
Also - if that was Currier, do other members think he was breaking away from the old 'cipher-text' idea, or that he was contributing to 'cracking the code'? [Note - an old idea isn't necessarily a wrong idea].
Q: Was Jorge Stolfi the first person to have asked and formally investigated the obvious question for an unknown script and language (viz "is it a foreign language?").
Q: Does there still exist any formal research, or written opinion, which would explain the long-held 'English' provenance? Has anyone considered the reasons for which that provenance was first abandoned? Was it just a case of shoving other opinions aside the better to push an agenda or theory?
Q: Given that Jacques Guy publicly admitted his hoax, and in the same article to the Times Educational Supplement that he could find no flaw in Stolfi's statistics and conclusions, why was Stolfi driven from the study ad.hominem?
Anyway, questions of such sort are avenues to enquiry, and can't be fixed with one authoritative assertion, so blog-comments wouldn't be the right place for them either.
RE: History of the study - davidjackson - 13-11-2018
jWe already have a provenance and history forum. I think such questions would be permitted by the sub forum rules.
However, I can't see any value to the suggested questions. They don't contribute towards the core function of this forum.
Edit :upon consideration, most of them will probably lead to flaming and ad hominems!
RE: History of the study - -JKP- - 13-11-2018
(13-11-2018, 04:18 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.-JKP -
I absolutely agree with you that most Voynich theories - purporting to be 'history'-narratives - would never pass peer review. (i.e. by historians specialising in the period's political, economic and social history).
So I gather you agree with my proposal? The forum should have a separate heading for those sort of discussions?
...
I'm probably the worst person on the forum to ask that question because I have almost zero interest in VMS history as interpreted by other people.
I'm interested in the VMS itself and in primary sources. What people said 30 or 50 years ago and who said it first doesn't matter to me. I'm not using their research. I haven't seen their research. I'm looking at the VMS and anything else I can find in libraries or on the Internet that relates directly to the VMS, without being filtered through someone else's perceptions. Reading about Wilfrid's assertions is useless to me.
I'm not against the idea. There might be other people on the forum who want to discuss it. It's just not of interest to me.