+- 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: Evidence, observations, assumptions (/thread-2702.html)
Evidence, observations, assumptions - ReneZ - 26-03-2019
In a recent post, DavidSch wrote:
Quote:I talk about observation and not assumption.
The main difference is that an observation should be made objectively; of course when I see a tree, there are always people that say: no that is a bush. I will quickly give up then, because I can spend my time better than convincing those people.
An assumption would imply that you start somewhere, without showing exactly why you start there or have no underlying metrics.
I agree that an assumption is most of the time a scientific mistake, sometimes it leads to new paths however.
google says:
Assumption - the act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof;Observation - the act or the faculty of observing or taking notice; the act of seeing, or of fixing the mind upon, anything.
This is something I already had in mind to write something about.
My train of thoughts can be well described by using the example of the similarity of Voynich MS f68v3 with an illustration from Nicole d’Oresme’s Livre du ciel et du Monde (1377) as pointed out by Ellie Velinska.
Let's start with:
Evidence.
Evidence is first of all the Voynich MS itself, but there is much more. It is also the combined set of other medieval manuscripts that have come down to us, and lots of other historic material. Evidence is mostly 'objective'. However, evidence can include subjective material, for example historic letters expressing opinions. For the above example, the evidence is the Voynich MS on the one hand, and the Oresme MS on the other hand.
Observation.
An observation is something that can be made by someone. It can be a spoken or written statement. In the above example, the observation is: "the two drawings are similar". This case is clearly subjective. Similarity is an opinion, and different people may see it differently. An observation isn't necessarily either true or false, but it may be.
Hypothesis.
The hypothesis will try to explain the observation (or more directly some evidence). Here, for example: "the drawing in the Voynich MS derives from some copy of Oresme". Many different hypotheses can be derived from a single observation. A hypothesis is more likely to be either true of false, even if we may not know which of the two it is.
Making hypotheses is not a bad thing. One simply has to remember that they have to be tested, and ideally proven. One should not start taking them for granted, or as some form of evidence. (This last point may seem obvious, but it is a surprisingly common flaw).
Assumption.
An assumption is like a hypothesis, but the word implies that this hypothesis does not derive directly from anything, except, perhaps, what one might call common sense.
An assumption in the current case could be: "the Voynich MS drawing could not have been made independently by someone, who never saw any of the Oresme (or similar) drawings".
Assumptions abound, and again, they are not a bad thing, as long as one is fully aware of them, and ready to drop them if this becomes necessary.
The problem with assumptions is that one tends to make them all the time, without being too much aware of it.
Good assumptions are the ones that are clearly stated. Even if they can still be wrong.
RE: Evidence, observations, assumptions - bi3mw - 26-03-2019
I would see observations differentiated. One can make an observation in detail. This can be followed by anyone (or not). But you can also make observations on a meta-level, that is, you see something and try to spin the "red thread" to make connections. Usually you combine several elements and make a statement about what you see as a whole. The transition to an assumption is often seamless. For example: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. : Oven - Lamb - IOH - "Maria-text" > Easter scene
RE: Evidence, observations, assumptions - ReneZ - 26-03-2019
I would see "Easter scene" as a hypothesis derived from a combination of observations, and some 'intermediate' hypotheses.
One complication is that hypotheses can be very simple, but they can also be the result of a significant amount of reasoning and deduction. In the latter case, the feeling could arise that such hypotheses are 'correct conclusions'. This might be true, but it might also be challenged. This is where a lot of forum discussions take place.
Example: some aspects of the drawing on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. look like some aspects of real-life banana plants.
This is an observation that quite a few people can probably agree with.
Hypothesis: the drawing represents a banana plant drawn from a live specimen.
To come to this hypothesis, one may have actually looked at lots of additional evidence, such as other herbals, accounts of the spreading of knowledge of banana plants etc.
In any case, the hypothesis is clearly distinct from the observation, and there may be people who agree with the observation but not the hypothesis.
Taking the hypothesis as evidence, one may then form the next hypothesis: the Voynich MS was not written in Europe.
Of course, there was no evidence that the MS includes a banana plant, and the easy solution is that both statements are part of a 'grand hypothesis'.
RE: Evidence, observations, assumptions - Davidsch - 27-03-2019
To be clear in context, my point here (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) when I used the difference between observation and assumption, was not to show that (indeed) an observation is subjective, but the important detail that such an observation can be proven easily.
An observation that can be exactly repeated by many people, with the same result, will be called in the scientific world: scientifically proven.
RE: Evidence, observations, assumptions - R. Sale - 01-04-2019
Rene,
Perhaps a few details need to be clarified regarding the comparison with VMs f68v3. While the book by Oresme was originally published in 1377, several other copies were made later on. Nick Pelling has cited six different versions. One of these is the one in the comparison by E. Velinska, which is BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23. As I understand it, this text was published about 1410, a generation after Oresme's death. From a different copy of the Oresme book, there is BNF Fr. 1082. This is <potentially> an image from the 1377 edition. I am not aware that cosmic illustrations from the other texts are yet available.
If the two 'Oresme' illustrations are from different copies of the same text, and since both are cosmic representations, it might be suggested that they are corresponding images. Yet the comparison between these two cosmic representations shows some clear differences. The image of the central earth differs in many details. Then where BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 shows the earth surrounded by stars, BNF Fr. 1082 has no stars at all. And where BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 has a scallop-shell patterned cloud band, based on a nebuly line, the BNF Fr. 1082 illustration used an entirely different technique. The images are visually different and there are significant differences in structure.
Now go back to the comparison between VMs f68v3 and BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23. Both show the earth as an inverted T-O structure. BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 is a pictorial representation. VMs f68v3 has labels and text. VMs is not a poor copy. VMs is a change of method. This is a code shift. Now look at the stars. In both cosmic illustrations, the earth is surrounded by stars. In the BNF image the stars are scattered like certain de Pizan illustrations. In the VMs the apparent stars encircle the earth like beads on a string. This is a play on words, both Latin and French use words which do not distinguish between "surrounded' and 'encircled". Obviously there is a clear visual difference.
In BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 there is an elegant cloud band, while the VMs appears distinctly different. The meandering line in the VMs shows 43 undulations, the same number as the BNF image. And the recovery of the proper, traditional terminology for a line with the structural pattern as seen in the VMs is a nebuly line. And the etymological origin of the word 'nebuly' is from the Latin word for 'mist' or 'cloud', thus demonstrating similarities in structure and in meaning, even though their appearances differ.
Then the VMs has the large outer circle, like a great wheel connected to the interior by eight curved spokes. This is where Newbold went wrong. He presumed that this was the Andromeda Galaxy seen by Roger Bacon through an anachronistic telescope. But perhaps it is better to interpret this construction in a manner more contemporary with the VMs parchment dates. What is it that the VMs shows? Both the circle and the spokes contain a long line of written text. What is the status of written text banners in medieval illustrations? They are informative, but they do not constitute real objects in the context of the illustrated image. Why should the VMs interpretation be different? The whole of this outer structure is ephemeral. It exists merely for the sake of creating and emphasizing visual difference, but has no effect on the structure whatsoever.
Each part of the VMs cosmos has structural similarity with BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 and in each part of the VMs there is some sort of alteration or disguise that has been used to maximize the visual differences. This is part of the evidence that reveals the true nature of the VMs. The enigmatic nature is an intentional creation. It was created in part by traditional, cultural information that was hidden; it is hidden until traditional names and interpretations can be rediscovered. The nebuly line is just one example.
RE: Evidence, observations, assumptions - Aga Tentakulus - 08-02-2020
Sometimes things are really deceptive.
Once I was lucky enough to find something like this.
The first time I looked, I had the feeling it must be this plant.
The match was just too perfect.
The realization after a few months. Unfortunately, this plant can not be considered as such.
RE: Evidence, observations, assumptions - Aga Tentakulus - 16-02-2020
This is not directly related to the VM manuscript, but applies to evidence and assumptions.
Just this morning at 7.15 on ARTE, I saw an interesting report Europa - cradle of mankind. ( german Europa - Wiege der Menschheit / french.ARTE "L'Europe, de berceau de humane".)
Everybody knew for 50 years that the origin of mankind comes from Africa.
Now, however, new findings suggest that the origin may be in Europe.
This tells me that one has to look twice before accepting it as a real proof.
There is also no shame in adapting a theory to new findings.
RE: Evidence, observations, assumptions - voynichbombe - 16-02-2020
The documentary dates from 2017, so it is also likely that some advances have been made in the meantime. I'm also sometimes sceptical about popular science tv documentaries (see Austrian VMS documentary from 2009).