16-04-2024, 01:56 AM
(16-04-2024, 01:15 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(15-04-2024, 02:46 PM)asteckley wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the idea that he doesn't listen to the experts just isn't one of them
Well, he listens to them, and then says that they're all wrong.
Hi Rene: That is a mischaracterization of my position on this. I've tried to explain it, maybe I wasn't clear... but your version is not reflective of how I see this issue:
I do not "say they are all wrong". I respect and agree that they have seen all the varied things they observed, and the cultures, eras and styles they all believed they originated from.
And the one way to make sense of the immense disparity they all identified, the one outcome that could explain the disagreement from so many capable and experienced minds, is that the Voynich is a forgery. No genuine item would elicit such confusion among experts, because genuine articles overwhelmingly stick to the time, place and content they were made in. Forgeries make these mistakes very often, because it is difficult to create something that accurately reflects content, materials and construction limited to a "target" era and content. These are too numerous to list, and I believe the Voynich is a prime example of this effect.
No, I can't say they were "all wrong" on the forgery issue, because they were not tasked with the question, and don't seem to have even pursued it to any extent. We would have to dig them up and ask them, "Yes, you think it is Parcelcian, or New World, or by Roger Bacon, etc., but do you think it's REAL?" Well if that was the case, and one of them said, "Yes", and I disagreed... well then you would have the right to claim I said that one was wrong. If I did. But they didn't, and I don't have to.
On the other hand, it is ironic for you to claim I "say they are wrong", when, in order to believe the Voynich is 1420 and genuine, as you do, it is actually you who must actually say "they are all wrong". Which is, of course, the point of my blog post, and 80% of this discussion. I accept almost everything these people told us about the Voynich, but to believe this is real and 1420, one must reject ALL of it.
Put more simply, to be 1910 and a forgery, I can accept the judgement of Singer, Panofsky, O'Neil, and a hundred others, who all disagreed with each other. A believer in the hypothesis that this is 1420 and genuine must discard virtually all of them, representing many lifetimes of research and experience in dozens of fields of scholarship.
But again these discussions have sparked an idea: It would be interesting and enlightening to list the great many cases of which I have learned about, in which "The Experts Got it Wrong". How and why they were fooled... well, actually not "fooled", as most scholars are not looking at things as possible fakes, they are trying to identify them based on what is in front of them.
Like the Voynich. They were trying to identify it, not vet it for authenticity.
Rich.