[Article] Unconventional Methods in Voynich Manuscript Analysis

[Torsten]

I don't see (at all) how the conclusion 'meaningful' is proven by the data presented.

It is basically the same way of reasoning as in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or Smith et al. 2019. Like in Montemurro et al. the authors describe an aspect of the co-occurrence pattern for the VMS. The authors also argue that the text reveals a complex structure and is therefore significantly different from random texts. They also conclude  "that Voynich manuscript is likely written in some natural language" (Zelinka et al., p. 13). Like other proponents of the language hypotheses they didn't consider basic counter arguments. But it must be said that they obviously didn't know basic facts about the VMS and were probably not aware of any counter arguments. 

Such claims were criticized several times (see for instance You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Just yesterday Gordon Rugg wrote "An answer lies in the framing, with the well-worn trope of 'baffled experts' versus the 'independent researcher' who solves the problem with common sense. It's superficially plausible, and it engages readers already fascinated for example by indecipherable codes in unsolved murder cases. But ignoring facts that don't suit you is a dangerous and fruitless road—not only in problem solving, but life in general" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

To make any progress it is important in my eyes to know the research of the past and to discuss known counter arguments to a preferred hypothesis. It is important that we take the research of others seriously as well as our own research. It seems that only this way a productive discussion and in the end some progress is possible.