27-10-2019, 03:03 PM
Hi JKP:
"I did not want to read too much into the forgery hypothesis based on Touwaide's botany statements because his forgery statements might be based on a number of other beliefs/factors/assumptions besides his observations about botany."
Yes I think there probably is more, in addition to the botany points he alludes to. But like you, I'd have to know more about his ideas to know if and what they are. At least he considers the availability of parchment one contributing factor (he cites the Franceshini element of my hypothesis), however one wants to categorize that: Evidence? Opportunity? But I was sent a couple of photographs from his presentation, and he used at least the entire first part of my hypothesis in them. Whether or not that implies an overall acceptance of that hypothesis, or was meant only to cite my work in general, I don't know.
"His primary interest, as far as I can tell from his vitae and publications, is in the history of science/medicine in a more general sense.
"Yes, I agree they may be linked, perhaps even strongly linked, but I don't have enough information about Touwaide's ideas to know how much weight his botanical observations gave to his ideas about forgery. Maybe over time that relationship will become more clear, but for the present I prefer to comment only on what has been explicitly mentioned so far."
And that is all we can do, of course. I'm sure I will have a chance to discuss it with him, perhaps sit in on a talk if there is one near me, in the States. I'll ask him if he has a site or blog which summarizes his thoughts on all this.
While I am here again, I want to make a couple of related points:
1) My opinion on "expert" opinion, really, on all opinion, is the same whether the person agrees my hypothesis plausible, or not: I want to know WHY they feel the way they do. I have and do have many who follow and believe my 1910 Forgery Theory the most probably and plausible, but if they don't know WHY it is, the evidence that makes up the concept, then I rely on that feedback as little as I would if they disagreed. Agreement and disagreement are both equally valueless without a full understanding of what that judgement is based on (IMHO).
2) I often agree with most experts... many of us do... when they are sharing their observations, but not necessarly on their opinions about what those observations mean. A good example for me would be Janick and Tucker, and other New World botanists. Yes, I absolutely agree that a great many of their plant comparisons are New World, but don't necessarily agree with their dating. I think those New World plants are there, yes, but because the forger put them there in 1908/10. Likewise, Mr. Janick agrees with, and has used, the armadillo reference, and my own "Bird Glyph" observations, in his book... but disagrees, strongly, that this is a modern forgery. So I wholly respect his, and many other, expert observations, but like all of them, and most others, I have my own ideas why those things they see, are there.
I only point this out because it relates to this thread, and yours, and others, thoughts on the work of Mr. Touwaide. I understand you can agree with some of what he has to say, and disagree with other parts of it. When I know more, I may also not entirely agree with him. None of this is black and white, is my point, for any of us, nor should it be.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
"I did not want to read too much into the forgery hypothesis based on Touwaide's botany statements because his forgery statements might be based on a number of other beliefs/factors/assumptions besides his observations about botany."
Yes I think there probably is more, in addition to the botany points he alludes to. But like you, I'd have to know more about his ideas to know if and what they are. At least he considers the availability of parchment one contributing factor (he cites the Franceshini element of my hypothesis), however one wants to categorize that: Evidence? Opportunity? But I was sent a couple of photographs from his presentation, and he used at least the entire first part of my hypothesis in them. Whether or not that implies an overall acceptance of that hypothesis, or was meant only to cite my work in general, I don't know.
"His primary interest, as far as I can tell from his vitae and publications, is in the history of science/medicine in a more general sense.
"Yes, I agree they may be linked, perhaps even strongly linked, but I don't have enough information about Touwaide's ideas to know how much weight his botanical observations gave to his ideas about forgery. Maybe over time that relationship will become more clear, but for the present I prefer to comment only on what has been explicitly mentioned so far."
And that is all we can do, of course. I'm sure I will have a chance to discuss it with him, perhaps sit in on a talk if there is one near me, in the States. I'll ask him if he has a site or blog which summarizes his thoughts on all this.
While I am here again, I want to make a couple of related points:
1) My opinion on "expert" opinion, really, on all opinion, is the same whether the person agrees my hypothesis plausible, or not: I want to know WHY they feel the way they do. I have and do have many who follow and believe my 1910 Forgery Theory the most probably and plausible, but if they don't know WHY it is, the evidence that makes up the concept, then I rely on that feedback as little as I would if they disagreed. Agreement and disagreement are both equally valueless without a full understanding of what that judgement is based on (IMHO).
2) I often agree with most experts... many of us do... when they are sharing their observations, but not necessarly on their opinions about what those observations mean. A good example for me would be Janick and Tucker, and other New World botanists. Yes, I absolutely agree that a great many of their plant comparisons are New World, but don't necessarily agree with their dating. I think those New World plants are there, yes, but because the forger put them there in 1908/10. Likewise, Mr. Janick agrees with, and has used, the armadillo reference, and my own "Bird Glyph" observations, in his book... but disagrees, strongly, that this is a modern forgery. So I wholly respect his, and many other, expert observations, but like all of them, and most others, I have my own ideas why those things they see, are there.
I only point this out because it relates to this thread, and yours, and others, thoughts on the work of Mr. Touwaide. I understand you can agree with some of what he has to say, and disagree with other parts of it. When I know more, I may also not entirely agree with him. None of this is black and white, is my point, for any of us, nor should it be.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.