The statement "There are no Voynich experts" (or the very similar wording that has been suggested in these posts) is a very useful soundbite in so far as it conveys the idea that there are a lot of people who have spent a lot of time studying the Voynich questions and yet the basic questions all remain unanswered with many different, contradictory ideas and theories, and a lot of ongoing debate.
But that is where the usefulness --and accuracy-- of that statement ends.
Of course there are indeed several Voynich experts!
When people, especially those from outside the active community such as documentary producers, want to go straight to the most important information and find out about most prevalent ideas, they have no problem finding the experts. Rene Zanbergen, Lisa Fagin-Davis, and Richard SantaColomo have all been consulted as experts on the manuscript.
Referring to someone as an expert is useful because it implies that they are particularly knowledgeable of the relevant information and probably more aware of facts that may be important to a particular question at hand. And so, all things being equal, they are likely to have more "informed" opinions than the average practitioner. It doesn't mean they are necessarily correct in their opinions and ideas, or that you have to agree with them at all. They don't even agree among themselves for that matter. (The flip side is that their immersion in the topic can also cause them to develop biases, giving them blinders against new ideas and information.
Anecdotes of experts missing the obvious facts in retrospect are plentiful. And Kuhn's thesis on that matter is well known.)
While who is or isn't an expert is entirely subjective, I can think of several very reasonable criteria:
* substantial experience dealing directly with the topic
* knowledgeable on the broad set of facts about the topic and on the history of activity on it
* a depth and breadth of applied research on the topic
* active participation in discussions with the community of researchers around the topic
* a considered opinion on specific aspects of the topic
* a continual accumulation of information about the topic.
By these standards, there are plenty of Voynich experts.
And one would have to admit that all of the ones I mentioned above can be considered experts, along with several more that are active on this forum. (Rene is too modest to call himself an expert, but let's face it:
If you want to know something about a particular research aspect of the VMS, and don't know where to even start, ask Rene.
His expertise may not be the deepest on every sub-topic -- although deep on some -- but it is probably the broadest of anyone's.
If you want to know something about the Voynichese handwriting in particular, or some other paleographic aspect and how it relates to other old manuscripts, ask Lisa. (These two are only the most obvious examples - there are at least 5 or 6 more one could cite.)
But that is where the usefulness --and accuracy-- of that statement ends.
Of course there are indeed several Voynich experts!
When people, especially those from outside the active community such as documentary producers, want to go straight to the most important information and find out about most prevalent ideas, they have no problem finding the experts. Rene Zanbergen, Lisa Fagin-Davis, and Richard SantaColomo have all been consulted as experts on the manuscript.
Referring to someone as an expert is useful because it implies that they are particularly knowledgeable of the relevant information and probably more aware of facts that may be important to a particular question at hand. And so, all things being equal, they are likely to have more "informed" opinions than the average practitioner. It doesn't mean they are necessarily correct in their opinions and ideas, or that you have to agree with them at all. They don't even agree among themselves for that matter. (The flip side is that their immersion in the topic can also cause them to develop biases, giving them blinders against new ideas and information.
Anecdotes of experts missing the obvious facts in retrospect are plentiful. And Kuhn's thesis on that matter is well known.)
While who is or isn't an expert is entirely subjective, I can think of several very reasonable criteria:
* substantial experience dealing directly with the topic
* knowledgeable on the broad set of facts about the topic and on the history of activity on it
* a depth and breadth of applied research on the topic
* active participation in discussions with the community of researchers around the topic
* a considered opinion on specific aspects of the topic
* a continual accumulation of information about the topic.
By these standards, there are plenty of Voynich experts.
And one would have to admit that all of the ones I mentioned above can be considered experts, along with several more that are active on this forum. (Rene is too modest to call himself an expert, but let's face it:
If you want to know something about a particular research aspect of the VMS, and don't know where to even start, ask Rene.
His expertise may not be the deepest on every sub-topic -- although deep on some -- but it is probably the broadest of anyone's.
If you want to know something about the Voynichese handwriting in particular, or some other paleographic aspect and how it relates to other old manuscripts, ask Lisa. (These two are only the most obvious examples - there are at least 5 or 6 more one could cite.)
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)