13-01-2017, 08:27 PM
I find this quite problematic.
The original publication was in a journal ('Herbalgram') which I presume is peer-reviewed.
That puts it at a very different level than all the blogs and web sites about the Voynich MS (including mine) which have not been subjected to any kind of review.
Yet, the original paper, and this new follow-up are 'sweeping a lot under the carpet'.
So how can an amateur community prove scientists wrong?
This is not obvious.
It is not dissimilar to the identification of John Dee's hand in the Voynich MS foliation, stated by a respectable scholar.
The original publication was in a journal ('Herbalgram') which I presume is peer-reviewed.
That puts it at a very different level than all the blogs and web sites about the Voynich MS (including mine) which have not been subjected to any kind of review.
Yet, the original paper, and this new follow-up are 'sweeping a lot under the carpet'.
So how can an amateur community prove scientists wrong?
This is not obvious.
It is not dissimilar to the identification of John Dee's hand in the Voynich MS foliation, stated by a respectable scholar.