[Transcription] Stephen Bax on his research

[Stephen.Bax]

Koen,
I'm a little shocked by the banality of Bax' comments - most are no more than repetitions of the same-old assumptions, left unquestioned and untested by the great majority of persons accepting them - e.g. that the botanical imagery is related to the 'herbals' tradition, or that the calendar's roundels do - or ever did - constitute a zodiac.  I like Darren Worley's approach, but as so much of Voynich writing,  it is directed by a tacit assumption that the answer to any question is already known. As if the only point of research was to support an old idea.  Surely research should begin by investigating the grounds for an assertion (such as that the centres of the calendar constitute a zodiac), rather than assuming it will prove true, and so looking only at zodiacs.

That Bax can let this fundamental flaw pass without noticing it doesn't auger well, it seems to me.

But as well as this, he is merely repeating - unacknowledged - observations first made by others, and in some cases as long as twenty years ago.  The positions of the gallows, for example.  Or the fact that the elongated letters we call 'gallows' appear in non-elongated form elsewhere.   Or the position in a page where the 'gallows' as such appear.  To repeat all this in a tone suggesting the observations original to Bax and whoever else he means by "we" seems either dishonest or gullible.  Dishonest if he, himself, learned this by reading old mailing list posts, or Philip Neal's site, or the posts to ciphermysteries, and gullible if he didn't stop to ask another informant exactly when and by whom this or that observation or conclusion had been made.

To someone who has been around even as long as I have (and that's less than a decade), this smacks of the same over-reliance on self-proclaimed 'experts' whose reputation has been gained in just such a fraudulent manner: by memorising and regurgitating the intelligent work done by others, and gathering ephemeral glory by the simple expedient of allowing, by their own silence, their hearers to believe that what is said is a product of some research of their own.

 But whether poor memory, or slight-of-hand, or gullibility is at the root of it, such things raise real doubts about Bax' thoroughness as a researcher and his ability to think critically about the sources he has employed - written or not.

In fact, hunting through and past that mish-mash of things copied from Reeds, or Stolfi, or Currier, or Pelling, or Neal.. etc., to discover exactly what it is that Bax believes he has so far contributed, himself, there seems far too little to merit so long an interview.

Even his stated philosophy... about focusing on the primary source, looking carefully at details, being self-critical as one works, not pre-empting conclusions and so on and so on... some of it is jolly near word-for-word the arguments I've published online, criticising the usual hypothesis-driven style.

Perhaps one of the linguists can recognise the pearl in this morass of pick-and-stitch, but I can't.

Thanks for taking so much of your time to turn it into text.

Thanks Diane

Your message seems more of a general mud sling than anything else, and at first I thought of just throwing some back, but in the spirit of cooperation which David and Koen are rightly trying to foster on this forum, let me try to be as construcutive and polite as I can.

1. Sorry you found it banal. People on this forum were asked to suggest questions, and so that framed the areas of discussion, as it should. For me that meant going over stuff in my 2014 paper, not new stuff, but that is fine. Not everyone is as well-versed in things Voynich as you. They have a right to ask what they like.

2. You say that I was going over "the same-old assumptions, left unquestioned and untested by the great majority of persons accepting them - e.g. that the botanical imagery is related to the 'herbals' tradition, or that the calendar's roundels do - or ever did - constitute a zodiac". 

Did you ever think that "if a lot of people accept them", then they might - shock horror - be correct?  Just a thought. In any case it is a convenient shorthand to talk about the 'zodiac pages' and so on without actually assuming they are zodiacs or anything else.

You accuse me of "looking only at zodiacs" - but when have I actually done that ever? So it is unfair to say that I "let this fundamental flaw" pass. 

It was a relaxed conversation, not a conference seminar. Why not try to be less bitter and attacking - even kinder? What is the constructive value of such mud throwing?

3. You say it doesn't auger well - an auger is  a tool resembling a large corkscrew, for boring holes in wood   .) Sorry, but if you want to hold me to academic standards then if you mean 'augur' please be accurate yourself.

4. You say I am "merely repeating - unacknowledged - observations first made by others, and in some cases as long as twenty years ago." Yes, I was in a relaxed way taking account of what others have said. In a talk such as that it is not possible to acknowledge every name and date. To say that "suggesting the observations [are] original to Bax and whoever else he means by "we" seems either dishonest or gullible" is ridiculous. I never claimed that all of these things were original to me and everyone knows that they are not. 

5.  You accuse me of 'slight-of-hand'. I assume you mean 'sleight of hand'. See Common errors of English usage: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.  Sorry, but you are the one insisting on rigour. 

6. I am really sorry you stoop so low as to accuse me of "poor memory, or slight-of-hand [sic], or gullibility  and say "such things raise real doubts about Bax' thoroughness as a researcher and his ability to think critically about the sources he has employed" .

Honestly! It was a relaxed conversation. If I was another sort of Voynich writer I would now have comPelling reasons at this point to flounce off the forum in a tizz. But I simply say Ho Hum, Diane again. On my own webiste you have abused so many people that I have received a host of complaints about your tone and manner, so now it just washes over me. 

However, you should be aware that to call someone 'dishonest' is in fact libellous and could result in legal action if you said it to someone less amenable.... did you know that?

5. Same again: "allowing, by their own silence, their hearers to believe that what is said is a product of some research of their own" - Rubbish. Read my paper itself and you will see that it is all referenced. This was an informal conversation about the VM in general and I will bet that no-one else thought I was claiming credit for the things you mention.

6. ..."his stated philosophy" - not it is not a philosophy, it is an approach to analysis. If you want us to be academic then we need to take care with such terminology. 

7. You say that it is "jolly near word-for-word the arguments I've published online" - sorry, before 2014 I had NEVER read a single word of yours. Even now I find your website so confusing to navigate that I have never found anything you said which remotely resembles my method. 

But how odd that you first accuse me of being wrong, and saying nothing worthwhile, and then accuse me of copying your ideas! Don't you see any irony in that? 

8. To tell the truth, I have searched your message through and through for some genuine and specific critique which I could answer or respond to, besides what I have already said, but it all just seems like mud-slinging, with a strong hint of envy ('gathering ephemeral glory') and a dose of paranoia (as in I'm right but no-one listens and they they steal my ideas). 

If you have any actual comments on specific things that I said do let me know so I can respond more fully.

Best wishes

Stephen