Classifying False Voynich Decipherment "Solutions"

[tavie]

I don't think you can classify theories/false solutions, and so I'd disagree that there is a "Cheshire" type that is easily distinguishable from other theories.  

What we see is an array of symptoms that false solutions tend to display.  Every false solution has at least a combination of these.  Certain of the symptoms are seen in all theories; others may or may not be present, in varying combinations.  And as these combinations likely overlap, I don't think there is a way of making a clean distinction and saying "this theory has Combination A symptoms so is Type A theory", etc.   But it's probably true to say that the worse theories tend to have all or most of the symptoms; the better theories have fewer. 

As for the symptoms, a non-exhaustive list would include:  

1. Provides "translations" of isolated words, or at most sentences out of context
   
2. Uses phrases like "it cannot be a coincidence": incorrectly thinks the probability of finding a "matching" word in their target language is low; is unaware of how prevalent such coincidences are, and of confirmation bias
   
3. Has not read the arguments provided by other theories, and so repeats their mistakes
   
4. Searches a dictionary and picks the word they like the most to fit their system, even if it is a rare or odd word
   
5. No grammar:  any sentences are a "word salad", with words chosen for how well they fit the system rather than whether they fit into a grammatical sentence.  There is little or no attention paid to how well the "translation" matches up with the target language's grammar 
   
6. System has multiple degrees of freedom:  in a blind test, two users of the system would not arrive at the same translation.  The "translation" is not repeatable.  
   
7. Explains away difficulties by suggesting multiple languages are used, or says experts in the language are needed to provide a full translation.  Keeps adding excuses for why a longer translation cannot be provided and/or for why the system stops working when applied to longer phrases
   
8. Little or no thought given to how the author(s) would use this system in practice and whether the information is really recoverable 
   
9. Fails to explain certain or even all key Voynichese unlanguage-like behaviour (line start/end patterns, paragraph start/ends, letter positions, word break combinations, and this is not an exhaustive list).  Many don't even know of these patterns since they haven't done their research.
   
10. Poor or no methodology; no cataloguing and self-questioning of assumptions they are making, of any distortions or accommodations they make in order to produce a "translation"; does not act as their own sceptic, leaving that role to others
    
11. Reacts badly to criticism of the theory.  Spends all their time defending the theory rather than genuinely exploring whether criticisms are right.  Some may even turn abusive.
    
12. Finds the "solution" in a matter of days or weeks but never asks the question "If the solution was this obvious, why hasn't anyone found it before?"  Focuses instead about how they are the one person to finally find the solution, to pull the sword from the stone. 
    

Most of these overlap or cause each other, which is why I can't see how there could be a classification.  And ultimately I'd agree with R.Sale that it is methodology (no 10 in the list) that is probably the most important.  Bad/non-existent methodology is the one symptom that is present in every single wrong theory.  I also doubt that the "true solution" can be demonstrated without a strong methodology.  Not just because a strong methodology helps in the first place prevent you from going down the wrong track and ruining your chances of finding the true solution, but also because it will help reduce/explain away degrees of freedom and show that your solution is repeatable.