Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.

[Linda]

If I had an epiphany about the text in my sleep, and knew how it worked when I woke up, I would write it out and present it in all it's glory or lack thereof. It would depend on the strength of the evidence as seen by others, not as seen by me, though. That is how you rise above the noise, presenting to others such that they can also see that it is real. I would hope for it to corroborate what is seen in the diagrams, also, or at least be related to them in some way, such that the whole makes sense as well.

[BessAgritianin]

Everyone wants to solve the Voynich Manuscript.


So I ask sincerely:
If someone truly believed they had identified a reproducible decoding framework for the manuscript, how should they present it responsibly while avoiding both sensationalism and premature dismissal?

Any thoughts?

This is a fair question and I can answer only from my experience:

Regardless of the quality of one's work one will be exposed to criticism and dismissal. But this should not stop the researcher to:
1. Prove that the solution is truthful
2. Show that the method is repeatable- it serves the herbal and the cosmology and the pharmacy language.
3. Consult linguist- specialist who can help validate the material.
4. Build a strong body of evidence.

  Document, refine and share- the evidence will speak for itself in future.

[pmw57]

So I ask sincerely:
If someone truly believed they had identified a reproducible decoding framework for the manuscript, how should they present it responsibly while avoiding both sensationalism and premature dismissal?

Any thoughts?

That's a good question. I'm personally posting my success to the reddit.com/r/voynich forum, and am asking the people in a different popular subreddit that I moderate how they would feel about me sharing my results there too.

We all find out ways.

[Radim Dobeš]

The correct interpretation of the Voynich manuscript will definitely not contain herbs and pharmacology, I know that for sure. It keeps repeating itself and it leads nowhere.

[Jorge_Stolfi]

The correct interpretation of the Voynich manuscript will definitely not contain herbs and pharmacology, I know that for sure. It keeps repeating itself and it leads nowhere.

Funny thing is, I know for sure it is the exact opposite.  It repeats itself just like herbals and pharmacopoeias do.

All the best, --stolfi

[ReneZ]

I know for sure that almost nothing is definite.

Edit: to put it in a better way: opinions are opinions. There is nothing sure or definite about them.

[nablator]

In a field surrounded by mystery, the burden is not merely to claim a solution, but to demonstrate one with enough clarity, consistency, reproducibility, and evidence to survive scrutiny.

You already have a pretty good answer to your question.

[Koen G]

That's a good question. I'm personally posting my success to the reddit.com/r/voynich forum, and am asking the people in a different popular subreddit that I moderate how they would feel about me sharing my results there too.

We all find out ways.

If your solution involves chatbots at all, it is most likely not allowed here. If not (and you're open to constructive criticism), post ahead!


For solvers worried that their true solution will not be recognized, I repeat what I've said before:

• I, and all Voynich researchers I've spoken to, want the manuscript to be solved.
  
• I know that I won't be the one to solve it.
  
• Thus, I am eagerly waiting for someone else to solve the manuscript.
  
• When a solution with some promise is put forward, this will become clear. This has happened several times in the past, even though so far, none of those theories have managed to live up to the expectations. (Quite on the contrary).
  
• When a solution is proposed that actually works, we will know, because there are many people who badly want to see a good solution.
  

Conclusion: if you post your solution and it is universally rejected by people who have actually studied the manuscript, then you know it's a bad solution.

Note on reproducibility: AI (chatbots) often steers towards this, and there have been dozens of slopmerchants with "reproducible" solutions. This usually means that their chatbot has set up some arbitrary system for them that (in the best case) is reproducible but still completely arbitrary. It would take me 10 minutes to come up with a reproducible transformation of a VM transcription, but that doesn't make it a good solution.

[Jorge_Stolfi]

Conclusion: if you post your solution and it is universally rejected by people who have actually studied the manuscript, then you know it's a bad solution.

Sorry, but that is not correct.  History is full of examples where practically all the experts in a field rejected what was in fact a correct and ground-breaking discovery/solution/invention.

While everybody here wants to solve the VMS riddle, most will instinctively want that someone else's proposal be proved false if it contradicts their own long-held beliefs, on which they invested much time and reputation, etc.  Thus they will look first for any flaws in the new proposal, and ignore or dismiss as "not significant" the evidence that supports it.

But that is the game in any field of research.  The good side is that it ensures that new proposals are promptly and thoroughly checked.

And that is not to say that expert opinions are worthless.  But they must be considered by their substance -- not simply for being "from experts".

All the best, --stolfi

[Koen G]

Well, Stolfi, I am not surprised that we differ in our views on this matter. 


I do agree that there are often struggles when a standard paradigm is challenged. But when it comes to a text solution, there is no standard paradigm, because we don't have a solution yet that can be challenged!