30-05-2017, 10:09 AM
The problem with many of these discussions is that they are full of pitfalls that come from:
- unstated assumptions that are of key importance
- papers drawing conclusions that are not justified by the data
- rebuttals of papers or theories that are as invalid as the work they are criticising (including some typical logical fallacies)
- so much has been written about the MS text that one may selectively find support for any theory (cite Rugg or cite Montemurro as one prefers).
In what Crisomalis writes I see some valid points and some invalid points. The fact that he considers Rugg's theory plausible is not a good point either.
While there have been years of discussion whether the Voynich MS is cipher or language, it is always overlooked that the two are not contradictory. If it's a cipher, there is a language. Using invented characters to write a language is a cipher (simple substitution).
The alternative to language (for me) is: 'meaningless'.
I could go on, but this is already way off the original topic
The 'lack of repeating sequences' has been named many times as evidence that there is not a meaningful text.
This is, for me, the most badly treated topic in all Voynich MS text analyses.
Critical numerical comparisons are not to be found. There was at least some of that here in this forum, and of course it is not easy.
- unstated assumptions that are of key importance
- papers drawing conclusions that are not justified by the data
- rebuttals of papers or theories that are as invalid as the work they are criticising (including some typical logical fallacies)
- so much has been written about the MS text that one may selectively find support for any theory (cite Rugg or cite Montemurro as one prefers).
In what Crisomalis writes I see some valid points and some invalid points. The fact that he considers Rugg's theory plausible is not a good point either.
While there have been years of discussion whether the Voynich MS is cipher or language, it is always overlooked that the two are not contradictory. If it's a cipher, there is a language. Using invented characters to write a language is a cipher (simple substitution).
The alternative to language (for me) is: 'meaningless'.
I could go on, but this is already way off the original topic
The 'lack of repeating sequences' has been named many times as evidence that there is not a meaningful text.
This is, for me, the most badly treated topic in all Voynich MS text analyses.
Critical numerical comparisons are not to be found. There was at least some of that here in this forum, and of course it is not easy.