14-11-2018, 06:46 AM
-JKP-
Here's my take on it.
Our task is to produce enough solid, reliable, verifiable, fact-based research to save later researchers wasting their own time.
Our task is not to hunt for circumstantial bits and pieces useful in building belief-structures around poorly-founded quasi-historical narratives.
If any assertion or contention isn't demonstrably true, and demonstrably relevant to the object's study it is a waste of time.
This sort of time-wasting has been characteristic of the manuscript's study.
Consider the 'cipher text' idea. It had absolutely no preliminary evidence offered to support it. Just a 'notion' that occurred to Wilfrid. Because no-one bothered to first establish their faith in the idea by checking its basis, but accepted as an item of almost religious faith, Newbold lost his life; William Friedman had a mental breakdown, and generations after them gave up until (I think) Stolfi decided to take a new tack and test whether or not the primary evidence supported a theory.
I'm not arguing Wilfrid's guess was wrong nor Stolfi's conclusions right. I'm saying that to demand researchers begin from a basis of faith - that they may not even discuss the past course of Voynich studies without risk of censorship, censure, hostile lobbying, and openly admitted risk of flaming and ad.hominem is an appalling state of affairs. Enquiries prohibited lest they inhibit the growth of a kind of intellectual duckweed: a monoculture.
Why not ask who, exactly, would run to the moderators, or lobby against a thread where we can discuss the foundation for this or that 'notion' which is, or was, taken as an article of faith?
Look around, JKP. Where's Pelling? Where's Don? Where's Sam G.? Where are... all the other independent minds.
Interesting, huh?
Here's my take on it.
Our task is to produce enough solid, reliable, verifiable, fact-based research to save later researchers wasting their own time.
Our task is not to hunt for circumstantial bits and pieces useful in building belief-structures around poorly-founded quasi-historical narratives.
If any assertion or contention isn't demonstrably true, and demonstrably relevant to the object's study it is a waste of time.
This sort of time-wasting has been characteristic of the manuscript's study.
Consider the 'cipher text' idea. It had absolutely no preliminary evidence offered to support it. Just a 'notion' that occurred to Wilfrid. Because no-one bothered to first establish their faith in the idea by checking its basis, but accepted as an item of almost religious faith, Newbold lost his life; William Friedman had a mental breakdown, and generations after them gave up until (I think) Stolfi decided to take a new tack and test whether or not the primary evidence supported a theory.
I'm not arguing Wilfrid's guess was wrong nor Stolfi's conclusions right. I'm saying that to demand researchers begin from a basis of faith - that they may not even discuss the past course of Voynich studies without risk of censorship, censure, hostile lobbying, and openly admitted risk of flaming and ad.hominem is an appalling state of affairs. Enquiries prohibited lest they inhibit the growth of a kind of intellectual duckweed: a monoculture.
Why not ask who, exactly, would run to the moderators, or lobby against a thread where we can discuss the foundation for this or that 'notion' which is, or was, taken as an article of faith?
Look around, JKP. Where's Pelling? Where's Don? Where's Sam G.? Where are... all the other independent minds.
Interesting, huh?