I completely agree that Google searches are not enough/
But they are a start - and a first, easy step is all I was suggesting, since Searcher seems not to have done it.
That's not the point and it is not reasonable to think of the issue in such terms.
In fact, Voynich studies used to observe the same standards that are normal in other fields of research: that's why we still speak about 'Neal Keys' and 'Currier Hands' and credit John Tiltman with doing such-and-such, or credit Friedman with first observing something else.
The aim isn't to puff up the first person who did it, and far less to falsely puff oneself up by the simple means of leaving out the name of the original researcher.
The aim is to help the study advance, by making clear where we got a particular idea about the manuscript, and where a newcomer can go back to read the evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.
As I say, this normal practice used also to be normal in Voynich studies, but it all went pear-shaped at some stage during the early 2000s.
I really don't know who started the brainless meme that 'to cite precedents is unnecessary' but it is one of the things that counts very much against the study and the people in it. And a major reason the study goes no-where because instead of knowing, reading and commenting on what has already been done (the normal way a science advances), all that's done is to go over and over and over the same old ideas - none of which led anywhere then, and still don't.
People have been talking about Aldrovandi's 'Plants of the Alchemists' books for twenty years; they have gone over and over the 'Balneis' for decade. The 'alchemical imagery' idea has been around for at least sixty years.
It is not normal for the study of a medieval manuscript to proceed in such a way. It is not normal for science; it is not normal for history; it is not normal for cryptography.
What is normal is to find, and cite, previous research, naming the researchers and so allowing your readers to get a proper sense of perspective on the topic - so they too can add a little, knowing what has already been said and done.
Why should it be necessary to explain this to members who - some of them at least - have degrees in medieval studies, or in historical or scientific studies?
But they are a start - and a first, easy step is all I was suggesting, since Searcher seems not to have done it.
Quote:Every blog poster knows very well what is their original work and what has been copied from elsewhere. The latter should be indicated.
That's not the point and it is not reasonable to think of the issue in such terms.
In fact, Voynich studies used to observe the same standards that are normal in other fields of research: that's why we still speak about 'Neal Keys' and 'Currier Hands' and credit John Tiltman with doing such-and-such, or credit Friedman with first observing something else.
The aim isn't to puff up the first person who did it, and far less to falsely puff oneself up by the simple means of leaving out the name of the original researcher.
The aim is to help the study advance, by making clear where we got a particular idea about the manuscript, and where a newcomer can go back to read the evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.
As I say, this normal practice used also to be normal in Voynich studies, but it all went pear-shaped at some stage during the early 2000s.
I really don't know who started the brainless meme that 'to cite precedents is unnecessary' but it is one of the things that counts very much against the study and the people in it. And a major reason the study goes no-where because instead of knowing, reading and commenting on what has already been done (the normal way a science advances), all that's done is to go over and over and over the same old ideas - none of which led anywhere then, and still don't.
People have been talking about Aldrovandi's 'Plants of the Alchemists' books for twenty years; they have gone over and over the 'Balneis' for decade. The 'alchemical imagery' idea has been around for at least sixty years.
It is not normal for the study of a medieval manuscript to proceed in such a way. It is not normal for science; it is not normal for history; it is not normal for cryptography.
What is normal is to find, and cite, previous research, naming the researchers and so allowing your readers to get a proper sense of perspective on the topic - so they too can add a little, knowing what has already been said and done.
Why should it be necessary to explain this to members who - some of them at least - have degrees in medieval studies, or in historical or scientific studies?