[Article] Solved again...

[-JKP-]

The Guardian published Cheshire's reaction in which he referred to Voynich scholars as "a marginal group":

Asked for his reaction, Cheshire told the Guardian he felt “no disappointment at all” at the university’s backtracking. “It was inevitable and expected, given the passion that the manuscript arouses, that a marginal group would find it difficult to accept new evidence,” he said.

“The paper has been blind peer-reviewed and published in a highly reputable journal, which is the gold standard in scientific corroboration. Thus, all protocol was followed to the letter and the work is officially supported. Given time, many scholars will have used the solution for their own research of the manuscript and published their own papers, so the small tide of resistance will wane.”


It wasn't a marginal group that removed the news release, it was the University.

Also, being published in a reputable journal is not the "gold standard in scientific corroboration", it is merely a way to get your ideas into the greater community so that it CAN be corroborated (or refuted).

"...small tide of resistance". That's a good one. I think you're right, René. He's his own press corps.

[-JKP-]

And from the Boston Globe:

"Cheshire fired back in an e-mail Friday morning, suggesting that critics just can’t believe he’s made the breakthrough but will gradually get used to the idea."

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

oops!!

Further down, they post a Cheshire quote attributed to Davis's name. Big oops! Does someone have contact with her so they can tell her and she can get that corrected!?

“I experienced a series of ‘eureka’ moments whilst deciphering the code, followed by a sense of disbelief and excitement when I realised the magnitude of the achievement, both in terms of its linguistic importance and the revelations about the origin and content of the manuscript,” Davis said in a statement released by Bristol University that has since been removed from the Web."

[Anton]

What we observe here in between is sad misunderstanding of what peer review is. Peer review has nothing to do with any "official support".

Furthermore, science is not about official support at all. There were times when, for example, heliocentric ideas lacked official support. They even encountered certain official opposition.

[Koen G]

Back before the university retracted its statement, I sent a mail to the journal editor to outline the problemes with Cheshire's paper from a linguist's perspective. He replied this evening, somewhat disappointingly. Note: I introduced myself explicitly as holding a MA in historical linguistics but he decided to promote me. Just so you know that I didn't pull a Cheshire 

Dear Dr Koen Gheuens

Thank you for your email and for taking the time to outline your concerns.

I am currently looking further into the article and so will not be able to provide any comment at present.

[-JKP-]

He has to talk to other people and they might wait to see what other comments cross their desk.

You did what you felt was right. It will have a ripple effect even if not an obvious one. Even if they don't pull the Cheshire article, they might evaluate future ones more carefully.

[-JKP-]

Gizmodo, not a parrot of the press release:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Forbes:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.



Language Log:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[VViews]

That last article in the UPenn languagelog JKP listed links to a Twitter thread which is absolute gold:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I also noted that Eric Kwakkel replied there that he is tempted to write up a formal refutal. I hope he does.

[ReneZ]

Thanks VViews!

This is excellent reading. It very well demonstrates the difference between amateur researchers and people who have a deep academic knowledge about a topic.

Lest it be misunderstood, of course I see myself as an amateur researcher w.r.t. the Voynich MS. Having an academic background in a completely different area, it has always been easy enough to understand the difference.

BTW, it wasn't Erik Kwakkel who was tempted to write a refutal, but the twitter author.

[VViews]

Oops, that's right ReneZ!
Indeed, it is great to read an analysis by a proper linguist, it definitely refutes Cheshire's claim in his correspondence with Koen, quoted here from the other thread'
"Now he said that all "proper linguists" agree with him and he gets only negative feedback from "enthusiasts"."

[-JKP-]

From the Ben Cartlidge twitter feed (linked on the languagelog thread), I thought this was an interesting comment:

"I.e. there are criteria about what Proto-Romance should, or should not, look like. Quite complex criteria at that. No-one would reconstruct Proto-Romance without any unaspirated stops, or without any pronouns, or with intact Latin nominatives singular."