Expert Opinion

[proto57]

My reason for dismissing certain people is not, because of their conclusions, but because on the basis of their specific qualifications they cannot be said to be specialists in dating the Voynich. Newbold had an excellent academic record, but he qualifications made him little better qualified to date the Voynich than the layman. So I would not dismiss experts on forgery if they had the relevant specialism on the subject. If for example if they were a specialist in identifying biblical forgeries they may not have the skills to identify medieval manuscript forgeries. You list some people as experts who I think are nothing of the kind that is my reason for excluding them.
I have read the Wikipedia page for Lehmann-Haupt. He clearly has an impressive CV. Whether he has the knowledge to be reliable at dating the Voynich is another question. I would have to know more. It would also be useful to know his argument for his dating. To me his associating the manuscript with Southern Italy is concerning as I think other opinion is more inclined to associate it with Northern Italy or Central Europe. It may have been a lucky guess on his part or he may have had a well reasoned argument for it; I don't know.

Ok then... Let me explain why I asked you this: First of all, I had two answers in mind, both which still apply, for if you rejected or accepted Haupt's testimony on dating. Both would make my overall points here. But you surprised me with a third option.
If one rejects Haupt, then it far more strikingly makes the case that virtually no pre-C14 expert believed this was early 14th century. Yes I show, and argue, that that case is already and amply made. And that somehow, each of the marvelous experts on that list are knocked off like ducks at carnival booth, when I in no way think they should be. And left is Lehmann-Haupt, who, on the grounds of comparative CVs, while his is excellent, also arguably does not target the "Voynich problems" quite as precisely as several of the other, previously rejected experts. So that point still stands for anyone who does reject Haupt's input. But you do not.

If one accepts Lehmann-Haupt's dating, then we have another striking case: That all the vast expertise (specialization, knowledge, experience, what have you) of all the others is rejected in his favor, with the easily arguable point that HE matches the C14, alone (or virtually alone). That is, the situation I believe exists, that the 1420 European Cipher Herbal (with minor variations) is unduly driven by that one radiocarbon range alone, and all input to the contrary, all alternate explanations for that range, be damned. And all things will be "C14-filtered", when they not only do not deserve to be, but arguably should NOT be.

And that is a conundrum for anyone who continues to so tailor that list, and any post-C14 list, and that is one of the facets of my pointing this out, both in my initial blog post on this subject, and practically all the ensuing comments on this. To make it clear this is being done, and that it shouldn't be done... it is backwards, and unscientific. That, although we process all input, and should do so, we have here an easily demonstrable example of an improper use of input. It is definable, and relatable.

But then you surprised me by giving a third option: You, so far, refuse to either accept nor reject Lehmann-Haupt's confirmation of the date range you believe, and probably the majority of Voynich Researchers, believe correct. Why? Well of course I cannot speak for you, and so do accept the reasons you have given, "Whether he has the knowledge to be reliable at dating the Voynich is another question. I would have to know more. It would also be useful to know his argument for his dating." But I must point out that these standards are, for most who have judged then rejected the other experts, is not a consistent one. In my experience the reasons for rejecting them is varied, and also, and more importantly, that the reasons other experts do give for their dating, when known, is quite sound. You know this if you have read them, and I am sure you have read them.

I would have to say that the logical implications to the two cases, accept and reject, for Haupt, would have occurred to anyone trying to answer my question, for the lone C14 "agreer". This conundrum (for 1420 advocates) is a sort of "checkmate" to this issue... there is no way to answer the question without shining a spotlight on the problem I've been describing: That the use of experts, in this case, is being done with the express purpose of defending the C14-Centric 1420 European Cipher Herbal Paradigm. And so, it does not get answered.

I should say in all honesty I doubt many of those people you cite as experts are experts and more importantly I don't think you really listen to them anyway as they have come to quite different conclusions from you. To the extent that you do listen to them, it is very selectively; observing a lack of consensus on dating and on that basis making the logical leap to the manuscript being a forgery.

Yes, I think from that you do seem to understand my position on this, and have actually stated it pretty well: But to clarify a bit, and point some things out about your statement: I actually, as I have said, do listen to them, as I do agree that most of the stuff they saw in the Voynich IS there, a troubling case if the Voynich is any sort of genuine article. And that is why most who think it is genuine must reject the vast amount of past, and a large amount of post-C14, outside opinion. I use what they have told me they saw there, I use there experienced guidance of lifetimes of thoughtful, scholarly education and research. And yes, I am selective, but I would not say "very". It is far, far simpler than that, and as I've explained, and will state again: These experts were not tasked nor challenged nor was it a major facet of any one of their careers to be looking at the Voynich as a possible forgery. They honestly reported on what the content looked like to them, what dates, geography and content it all implied. I do one thing: I point out why I believe they are all correct in most of this, and explain it by the fact they were all looking at a forgery. My hypothesis "makes" them all correct, or more correctly, my hypothesis explains their wide range of opinions. Which is, as I've pointed out, a "red flag" of forgery, as forgeries often cause a wide range of opinions among experts, even if they do not question their authenticity. Forgeries are usually jumbled messes like like the Voynich is.

In fact the overwhelming consensus now and in the past appears to be that the Voynich is not a forgery, so why pretend that you are really listening to those people you fundamentally disagree with. The only thing I think one can say with confidence is that there has been a lack of consensus amongst academics and laypeople about many aspects of this manuscript that sadly is not an endorsement of any specific theory.

Well first of all, consensus is not science. And also, I again point out that it is I, and anyone who believes this may be a forgery, who are the ones who actually use "consensus" to come to that opinion; while it is 1420 Genuine which must reject consensus, and then rationalize the rejection. I am not pretending to listen to them, that is the whole point here... I do listen to them, I do not reject them. The whole point of my blog post, and all this ensuing discussion. Claiming over and over that I do this, and the Genuinists do not, is not demonstrated by the history of how expert opinion has been viewed and used by all concerned.

And again, the "lack of consensus" is very much an indication, a very important clue, as to what the Voynich is. It is evidence that should not be discarded, and I do not discard it, I let it tell me something, as should be done. And what it tells me, the best explanation for it, is that the Voynich is a crude and inexpert forgery, improperly filled with a vast array of content from many geographies, disciplines, eras, and styles, up to the early 20th century, and made with materials and construction methods that are anachronistic and anomalous to the old and genuine thing it struggles to pretend it is.

But I've said this in a great many ways, many times now, and fully understand you disagree, and why you disagree. And of course that is fine. What this great discussion has allowed us both to do is to explain our very different views on this, and why we come to the disparate conclusions we have come to: The reasoning behind our positions. As I have always felt and often said, that is the most valuable, and most interesting part of all this: How we think about virtually intractable problems, and the Voynich is a perfect storm of intractable.