Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

[Mark Knowles]

The Voynich amateur world consists to a very large extent of people who think they know everything better. Even if they found out about the MS five years ago, six months or two weeks. Most of these people are not *at all* receptive of any type of advice.

They just say: well you don't know the answer (like you just did, David), so why should  listen to you.

I think there is a case for turning that lens inwards and looking at ones own research in the way that one looks at others.

That is why I am dubious about the notion that we can say that there are experts on the Voynich whether they have studied the manuscript for a week, 5 years or 25 years. I prefer to let time eventually decide who was right and who was wrong about different ideas. When time will reach that conclusion I cannot say.

I don't think I can reasonably claim to be an expert on the Voynich as my ideas have not been proven/disproven and I think others should be wary of doing so either. There is a saying in English "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones", which I think we would all do with bearing in mind.

I do agree that analysing the theories of others is often not a productive use of one's time, which is why I don't spend much time doing so. I have projects that I am continually engaged in, whether it be building up a large collection of pre-1447 cipher keys or systematically matching small plants to large plants in an extent that has not nearly been done before or making contacts with experts on medieval maps to discuss the rosettes foldout.