18-03-2016, 10:27 PM
Helmut,
Some assertions about the manuscript and its content remain no more than hypotheses formed first and later shored up by colllecting data likely to support it while eliminating or ignoring anything offering opposition. I find that approach poorly suited to a proper evaluation of an unprovenanced manuscript.
In other cases, the person may offer no hypothesis at all, but contribute valid observations which stand the test of time. Philip Neal's contributions have all been of this admirable type, and if I were to vote on who I think had made the most valuable contribution to advance of our knowledge of MS Beinecke 408, I'd vote for him. Objectivity, independence, balanced study, and relevant skills and/or qualifications.
Since I am one of the four people (with Stolfi, Wiart and Mazar) who after studying the manuscript in depth, concluded that its content reflected the eastern, rather than the western sphere, I won't comment more on that opinion, except to say that in no case was it hypothesis-first sort of stuff.
Whether the 'New World' matter is just a storyline, developed from thin air for which support was later sought, or a valid conclusion from broad comparative studies by people with appropriate abilities I don't know yet. I'm waiting to read the evidence for and against. I mean evidence, not just assertions or lobbying or anything of that sort.
Calling everything a 'theory' as Voynich studies tends to do has become a habit, and an unfortunate one, in my opinion because it tends to treat everything as a 'notion' or theory, from the silliest off the cuff idea to the most careful conclusions from preliminary in-depth study.
Some assertions about the manuscript and its content remain no more than hypotheses formed first and later shored up by colllecting data likely to support it while eliminating or ignoring anything offering opposition. I find that approach poorly suited to a proper evaluation of an unprovenanced manuscript.
In other cases, the person may offer no hypothesis at all, but contribute valid observations which stand the test of time. Philip Neal's contributions have all been of this admirable type, and if I were to vote on who I think had made the most valuable contribution to advance of our knowledge of MS Beinecke 408, I'd vote for him. Objectivity, independence, balanced study, and relevant skills and/or qualifications.
Since I am one of the four people (with Stolfi, Wiart and Mazar) who after studying the manuscript in depth, concluded that its content reflected the eastern, rather than the western sphere, I won't comment more on that opinion, except to say that in no case was it hypothesis-first sort of stuff.
Whether the 'New World' matter is just a storyline, developed from thin air for which support was later sought, or a valid conclusion from broad comparative studies by people with appropriate abilities I don't know yet. I'm waiting to read the evidence for and against. I mean evidence, not just assertions or lobbying or anything of that sort.
Calling everything a 'theory' as Voynich studies tends to do has become a habit, and an unfortunate one, in my opinion because it tends to treat everything as a 'notion' or theory, from the silliest off the cuff idea to the most careful conclusions from preliminary in-depth study.