New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

[proto57]

I had started this reply much earlier but then ran out of time to post it. The site has been really busy this month and so has my life outside this group. So please forgive if this response is a little old now that so many more responses have been posted.

There is a side of me that wants to thank Rich for his post. He does make some good points in it and he has been researching the VM for quite awhile. While that might not make him a so-called expert, it doesn't mean his opinion isn't worth listening to. Quite the contrary actually. Just as are the many other opinions, opposing or not, of the many others who have also been researching the VM for a long time.

But Rich's blog post reads like a diatribe more than it does an honest opinion or an offer of useful information for thoughtful consideration. And as others have pointed out there are also errors and omissions in it. There are several staunch factions, like the hoax versus genuine ones, in VM research that seem to me to quite often distract everyone from being able to reach any kind of conclusion. As long as VM research remains a Tower of Babel, I doubt we will ever find, or at least not widely accept, any possible solution. I understand Rich's frustration and I sympathize but I don't think the post really accomplished anything other than allowing him to vent. The blog is Rich's and so he should post what he wants in it but I wish he would have written this post better, leaving all the venting and frustration and bias out and keeping all the good points in about the so-called experts and considering what they have said at varying times with both a measure of respect and one of skepticism.

I think it is good for VM researchers to consider what has actually been proven and more importantly what has not and then keep that all in context. It is also important to consider the backgrounds of those who propose anything about the VM, dating or otherwise, so their opinion can be judged according to the level of their knowledge, if not also their expertise (which is not the same as being an expert), professional or otherwise. And so much of what has been written about the VM is just that: opinion. Knowledgeable and well-researched perhaps but still opinion. Irrefutable proof of anything about the VM, and also what it is not, is in very short supply, the radiocarbon dating, the ink analysis and the protein testing notwithstanding, and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future. And any such proof will have to invariably consider and relate to and concur with all other aspects of the VM as well. The very best proof would be to thoroughly dissect and study and scientifically test all of the physical VM, not just samples here and there, and that isn't going to happen because this would likely destroy it in the process. Whether or not irrefutable proof is even possible otherwise remains to be seen. It may well be we will only ever achieve convincing proof of what the VM is or is not, in whole or in part. If we are even able to do that.

Personally, I have my own ideas about the VM and I expect them to change many times for the duration of my interest in the VM. I do pay attention to the experts in the various disciplines related to VM research and I consider them accordingly. I also consider others who may not be experts but who offer much knowledge and expertise. None of what I have read so far has irrefutably or even convincingly proven or disproven to me anything about the VM, in whole or in part. Not yet. Except possibly the dating of the vellum, the composition of the inks, the composition of the vellum and the conclusion that it is not a palimpsest but even then only in the context of the limited samples taken and tested. There is so much written opinion to consider and I am still very new to VM research. If you were to ask me if I currently agree or disagree with Rich about the VM being a forgery or a hoax (which, I might add, as much as he wants us to believe his post is open to other possibilities, he is still promoting that it is such), then I would have to say no and that is considering all aspects of hoaxes and forgeries, modern or otherwise. I am open to the possibility but I will need convincing proof of such and so far I have not seen that. Ultimately, anyone researching the VM, myself and Rich included, must limit ourselves to what we believe to be the best possible assumptions and lines of investigation and this is simply because there are so many possibilities and we each have only so much time to invest in something that we are not getting paid to do but rather are doing it from personal interest.

Thank you for that, and I actually agree with most of it. My post in question is certainly one of the more "rantish" posts, a "diatribe" maybe, in many respects, and yes, it was one written with a measure of frustration. That being said, being admitted to, I would say that this is not entirely correct, "[it] reads like a diatribe more than it does an honest opinion or an offer of useful information for thoughtful consideration."

Diatribe, yes... but it is an accurate reflection of my honest opinions, and I would argue that the points presented are useful to others. It think, for one thing, the interesting (contrary and agreeing) responses to it are a reflection of this. And I think it does offer useful information that should be considered: Probably since the beginning of this investigation, circa 1912, the use and treatment of expert opinion has been of paramount importance and interest. Yet most people new to the field of Voynich research simply hear, "The experts got it right!", not realizing the long and complex saga of "Voynich expert opinion".

But point well taken, I did reflect some frustration there, and so I don't mean to throw the baby (your review) out with the bathwater (the small part I disagree with). I highly appreciate you, and the others, for taking the time to respond to my ideas here, whether or not they understand or agree with them entirely.

Rich.