20-10-2018, 06:54 AM
It is usual to find, in any formal study, a keen discussion of methodology and principles. HOW does one go about investigating an idea's validity? What sort of factual basis is required to justify the formation of a 'theory' and what is the difference between a passing notion, an 'idea', a self-referential fiction and so on.
We see none of that sort of discussion in the study today - and as a rule any effort to raise questions about methodology or current practice sees a ton-weight of censure-bricks descend on one's head, because it is impossible to discuss where we've gone wrong, or where we are going well, without footnotes and accurately-attributed examples.
Anyway, on the theme of absent, flawed, careless or long-outmoded methods in creating theories about history and the transmission of objects and ideas, I recently mentioned 'Entanglements' and their schematic representation.
Since there are now quite a number of other Voynich authors who have followed the pioneers into the area of eastern Greek culture, medieval Constantinople and the wider Byzantine sphere, and some who argue that the manuscript passed from this or that region to another at thus-and-thus a time in history, may I introduce you to the style of Entanglement diagrams in that context.
The following paper is available through Research Gate and contains a large number of illustrative graphs and diagrams as well as impeccably researched text. Fully footnoted and with earlier observations and conclusions CORRECTLY attributed to their sources, allowing you to test the value of those sources, as well as testing the later author's integrity. This sort of testing is a routine part of academic method and it would be odd indeed if scholars were censured for such method - or indeed for criticism of others' methodology.
See,
Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, 'Calculating the Synod? New Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches for the Analysis of the Patriarchate and the Synod of Constantinople in the 14thC', Paper presented at the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies: Proceedings of the Round Table "Le Patriarcat Oecuménique de Constantinople et Byzance « hors frontières »" published January 2014.
We see none of that sort of discussion in the study today - and as a rule any effort to raise questions about methodology or current practice sees a ton-weight of censure-bricks descend on one's head, because it is impossible to discuss where we've gone wrong, or where we are going well, without footnotes and accurately-attributed examples.
Anyway, on the theme of absent, flawed, careless or long-outmoded methods in creating theories about history and the transmission of objects and ideas, I recently mentioned 'Entanglements' and their schematic representation.
Since there are now quite a number of other Voynich authors who have followed the pioneers into the area of eastern Greek culture, medieval Constantinople and the wider Byzantine sphere, and some who argue that the manuscript passed from this or that region to another at thus-and-thus a time in history, may I introduce you to the style of Entanglement diagrams in that context.
The following paper is available through Research Gate and contains a large number of illustrative graphs and diagrams as well as impeccably researched text. Fully footnoted and with earlier observations and conclusions CORRECTLY attributed to their sources, allowing you to test the value of those sources, as well as testing the later author's integrity. This sort of testing is a routine part of academic method and it would be odd indeed if scholars were censured for such method - or indeed for criticism of others' methodology.
See,
Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, 'Calculating the Synod? New Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches for the Analysis of the Patriarchate and the Synod of Constantinople in the 14thC', Paper presented at the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies: Proceedings of the Round Table "Le Patriarcat Oecuménique de Constantinople et Byzance « hors frontières »" published January 2014.