05-09-2020, 07:38 PM
When it comes to:
Rainer Hannig, my understanding is that he is an Egyptologist and so I imagine that his background is relevant to his "Hebrew" language theory. I don't know how eminent an Egyptologist he is, what achievements he has in this profession or how highly regarded he is. Whilst, although I haven't studied it, his theory appears to be flawed, it is reasonable to assume that he is an intelligent person.
Gerard Cheshire's, academic credentials have no relation to the subjects associated with the Voynich manuscript. He works in something like Behavioural Ecology, if I remember correctly. He is research assistant, so a more junior academic.
Tucker and Janick are academics
Gordon Rugg is a reputable academic, though I am not sure how closely he field of expertise actually is the subject of the Voynich.
Stephen Bax is of course another example of an academic with a relevant background.
Now I am not saying that academics are the be all and end all, there have been many academics going back to Newbold who have come to erroneous conclusions. Even the most able academics throughout history have got things wrong. However I do think it can serve as a very useful indicator of the seriousness of the researcher depending on the level and relevance of those academic credentials.
I should say that when it comes to the Voynich I consider myself an amateur as I don't think my academic credentials, such as they are, really qualify me to call myself anything else. I don't have a problem with that many amateurs have made significant research contributions. I personally do however take academic opinion very seriously in my research when it relates to specific areas of expertise.
Rainer Hannig, my understanding is that he is an Egyptologist and so I imagine that his background is relevant to his "Hebrew" language theory. I don't know how eminent an Egyptologist he is, what achievements he has in this profession or how highly regarded he is. Whilst, although I haven't studied it, his theory appears to be flawed, it is reasonable to assume that he is an intelligent person.
Gerard Cheshire's, academic credentials have no relation to the subjects associated with the Voynich manuscript. He works in something like Behavioural Ecology, if I remember correctly. He is research assistant, so a more junior academic.
Tucker and Janick are academics
Gordon Rugg is a reputable academic, though I am not sure how closely he field of expertise actually is the subject of the Voynich.
Stephen Bax is of course another example of an academic with a relevant background.
Now I am not saying that academics are the be all and end all, there have been many academics going back to Newbold who have come to erroneous conclusions. Even the most able academics throughout history have got things wrong. However I do think it can serve as a very useful indicator of the seriousness of the researcher depending on the level and relevance of those academic credentials.
I should say that when it comes to the Voynich I consider myself an amateur as I don't think my academic credentials, such as they are, really qualify me to call myself anything else. I don't have a problem with that many amateurs have made significant research contributions. I personally do however take academic opinion very seriously in my research when it relates to specific areas of expertise.