26-04-2020, 12:41 PM
With respect to the problem of "non sequitur", the elementary form of deduction could be described as:
"A" therefore "B"
We have a piece of information "A", and from this we deduce "B".
Now this can go wrong in several ways. "Non sequitur" means that A can be true, but B does not follow from it. The basis of most arguments presented in favour of the "modern fake" theory is like this.
The argument is that:
"A" is the observation that something is unusual
"B" is the conclusion that the MS is a fake (or more likely to be a fake).
This does not follow.
But the deduction can go wrong in other ways.
It could be that "A" is not true in the first place.
It could also be that "A" is not known, but an assumption or a hypothesis. As soon as "B" has been derived from it, this important distinction is lost.
In reality, "A" and "B" become part of the same hypothesis, and they don't provide evidence that this hypothesis is likely to be correct. They don't confirm or support each other. This quickly leads to circular reasoning.
A remarkable example of this is a book that links the Voynich MS with the Italian 'Castel del Monte' by Fallacara and Occhinegro. Their theory is that this castle was once a "temple of health".
Towards the Voynich MS community, the suggestion that this castle was such a place was presented as evidence that this castle can be seen in the Voynich MS on f85r2.
Towards the italian historic community, its appearance in the Voynich MS was used as evidence that this castle was used for such purposes.
"A" therefore "B"
We have a piece of information "A", and from this we deduce "B".
Now this can go wrong in several ways. "Non sequitur" means that A can be true, but B does not follow from it. The basis of most arguments presented in favour of the "modern fake" theory is like this.
The argument is that:
"A" is the observation that something is unusual
"B" is the conclusion that the MS is a fake (or more likely to be a fake).
This does not follow.
But the deduction can go wrong in other ways.
It could be that "A" is not true in the first place.
It could also be that "A" is not known, but an assumption or a hypothesis. As soon as "B" has been derived from it, this important distinction is lost.
In reality, "A" and "B" become part of the same hypothesis, and they don't provide evidence that this hypothesis is likely to be correct. They don't confirm or support each other. This quickly leads to circular reasoning.
A remarkable example of this is a book that links the Voynich MS with the Italian 'Castel del Monte' by Fallacara and Occhinegro. Their theory is that this castle was once a "temple of health".
Towards the Voynich MS community, the suggestion that this castle was such a place was presented as evidence that this castle can be seen in the Voynich MS on f85r2.
Towards the italian historic community, its appearance in the Voynich MS was used as evidence that this castle was used for such purposes.