01-07-2019, 01:24 PM
I think it is fundamentally wrong to try to divide people into two (or more) camps, for example whether they are proponents or not of the natural language hypothesis.
I am reminded of the latest blog post of Rich Santacoloma, where he basically writes that everyone is working from a certain theory, and sees the evidence in light of this theory.
I know several people who are not working on the basis of any theory or hypothesis, but are still in the stage of 'collecting information'. This is certainly the case for myself. I am not aware of any evidence that tilts the balance of meaningful vs. meaningless into either direction.
If I am critical of certain approaches, it is often because I think that the conclusion is not sufficiently justified by the evidence (data) presented. This is both in case of your paper, and in the case of the Montemurro paper. Just as examples.
So in the first case I am not arguing that the text cannot be meaningless. It is just that this is not shown by the evidence presented. Similarly, but in the opposite sense, for the Montemurro paper.
What I do see evidence for in the MS text is 'intention'. This suggests that the text was not the result of chance (someone throwing dice, for example, or indeed moving cardan grilles across a table).
Another interesting aspect is that not only are arguments behind a paper or a proposed solution occasionally flawed, the same can be true for the arguments presented *against* these theories. And of course it goes without saying that if an argument against a theory is flawed, this is not a point in support of this theory.
I don't know if the text is meaningful or not. Just as a small anecdote, in the late 90's there was a 'pizza bet' in the old Voynich mailing list. I don't remember the precise rules. Basically, everyone contributing had to present his favourite explanation for the MS text, and if some day the truth was known, I believe that everyone had to buy a pizza for the person who had it right. Mine was 'mostly meaningless, but with meaning in small parts'.
I am reminded of the latest blog post of Rich Santacoloma, where he basically writes that everyone is working from a certain theory, and sees the evidence in light of this theory.
I know several people who are not working on the basis of any theory or hypothesis, but are still in the stage of 'collecting information'. This is certainly the case for myself. I am not aware of any evidence that tilts the balance of meaningful vs. meaningless into either direction.
If I am critical of certain approaches, it is often because I think that the conclusion is not sufficiently justified by the evidence (data) presented. This is both in case of your paper, and in the case of the Montemurro paper. Just as examples.
So in the first case I am not arguing that the text cannot be meaningless. It is just that this is not shown by the evidence presented. Similarly, but in the opposite sense, for the Montemurro paper.
What I do see evidence for in the MS text is 'intention'. This suggests that the text was not the result of chance (someone throwing dice, for example, or indeed moving cardan grilles across a table).
Another interesting aspect is that not only are arguments behind a paper or a proposed solution occasionally flawed, the same can be true for the arguments presented *against* these theories. And of course it goes without saying that if an argument against a theory is flawed, this is not a point in support of this theory.
I don't know if the text is meaningful or not. Just as a small anecdote, in the late 90's there was a 'pizza bet' in the old Voynich mailing list. I don't remember the precise rules. Basically, everyone contributing had to present his favourite explanation for the MS text, and if some day the truth was known, I believe that everyone had to buy a pizza for the person who had it right. Mine was 'mostly meaningless, but with meaning in small parts'.