07-04-2023, 02:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2023, 03:46 PM by Mark Knowles.)
I thought I would make a further comment on inference from rarity:
The Voynich is a very rare and unique document. It is tempting to try to infer things from this. However I think here we often encounter problems.
For example:
If the Voynich is a hoax it is a very rare and unique hoax for the time. So on this basis can we conclude it is a hoax, I think not.
As another example:
If the Voynich is written in an unknown language or just an unknown script then it is a very rare and unique example of such. This is as we know of no other example of anything written in this language or script. So on this basis can we conclude it is written in an unknown language or script, I think not.
A further example:
If the Voynich is written in some kind of shorthand then it is a very rare and unique example of such. So on this basis can we conclude it is written in shorthand, I think not.
And this applies to all hypotheses. In short whatever it is, it is a very rare example of such, though it may be rarer in some cases than others.
So anyone using an argument of rarity against an explanation for the Voynich is not really producing a very strong argument. It is also very important that one of the reasons we are interested in the Voynich is its rarity and uniqueness, so it's rarity is an implicit assumption in our research. If it wasn't so rare and unique most of us wouldn't be studying it and therefore would not be seeking to explain its existence and therefore this argument would not arise.
Of course, one day we might discover a similar document and so then the Voynich will not be so rare.
The Voynich is a very rare and unique document. It is tempting to try to infer things from this. However I think here we often encounter problems.
For example:
If the Voynich is a hoax it is a very rare and unique hoax for the time. So on this basis can we conclude it is a hoax, I think not.
As another example:
If the Voynich is written in an unknown language or just an unknown script then it is a very rare and unique example of such. This is as we know of no other example of anything written in this language or script. So on this basis can we conclude it is written in an unknown language or script, I think not.
A further example:
If the Voynich is written in some kind of shorthand then it is a very rare and unique example of such. So on this basis can we conclude it is written in shorthand, I think not.
And this applies to all hypotheses. In short whatever it is, it is a very rare example of such, though it may be rarer in some cases than others.
So anyone using an argument of rarity against an explanation for the Voynich is not really producing a very strong argument. It is also very important that one of the reasons we are interested in the Voynich is its rarity and uniqueness, so it's rarity is an implicit assumption in our research. If it wasn't so rare and unique most of us wouldn't be studying it and therefore would not be seeking to explain its existence and therefore this argument would not arise.
Of course, one day we might discover a similar document and so then the Voynich will not be so rare.