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

[proto57]

The idea that those who already think the Voynich proven genuine have already, by doing so, declared it falsifiable.

I know they would (or should) say it is falsifiable, but I was interested in what you would say.  I agree with you that if someone thinks with certainty that the modern forgery theory is false, then they must also agree it is falsifiable.

... It does not matter what you think I would say, because you have already declared the Modern Forgery theory false, and therefore, declared the theory falsifiable...

...It can't be both ways, i.e, declared falsifiable, and at the same time, unfalsifiable, based on anything... let alone, what one imagines I may or may not say in the future. It is one or the other.

Rich, I hadn't declared your theory false.  I would like to have that kind of confidence but I don't.  If I had declared it as false, then as you say, I wouldn't have asked if it was falsifiable.  And I am not expert in the relevant matters in any way that would allow me to declare it false myself.  I don't have Lisa's expertise in paelography and medieval manuscripts; I don't have Rene's in the radio-carbon dating or the historical provenance or the limitations of Voynich's access to the correspondence in question.  All I can do is place a high weight on their expertise whilst not completely forgetting that experts can make mistakes, and following the logic, evidence, and credibility of the discussion as best I can without the specialist knowledge.  And while I don't want the manuscript to be a forgery, I also have an interest in not wasting even more time than I already have on something that is later found out to be a forgery.

I hadn't declared your theory was certainly unfalsifiable either but I have said that when I first asked the question, I was getting that impression from the discussion. And it grew in the next couple of days.  I know technically even an unfalsifiable theory could still be true but in practice it loses a lot of credibility for me, at least when I lack the expertise to judge it on other levels.  So I asked to see if that impression of unfalsifiability was unjustified.  But when many of the responses I've got are on the lines of challenging the rival theory or saying I'm trying to discredit you, rather than confirming consistent conditions for falsifiability, it strengthens rather than corrects that impression.

Well thank you for clarifying all your thoughts and reasoning on this. I guess it comes down to two things, then: One, trusting the judgment of others: If someone wants to know Modern Forgery is falsifiable, they already know that it is: If they accept that it has been proven false.

Two, on the other hand, is they have not decided if it is false or not, and do not accept the judgment of others on the matter: Then they would have to decide, for themselves, if anything could convince them it was false. If not, then it is not falsifiable, if yes, then it is.

I suppose I am case two, because I do not think it has been proven false, and also, I know I do have situations in which I would consider it proven false. So, to me, in my opinion, it is falsifiable.

The funny and frustrating situation arose, here, which was a sort of mash-up of both: People who already considering Modern Forgery proven false, and therefore, falsifiable, were assuming that I would never accept any evidence (despite my protestations), and therefore, it was unfalsifiable. It was a logically impossible set of circumstances, difficult to unravel.

But as I said, if anyone was genuinely curious as to what I would consider proof that the Voynich manuscript was genuine, and old, I did list those. This thread is sooooo long now, so I've had trouble finding that list just now: But basically, it would be these: A reference that is incontrovertibly describing the Voynich, and is provably old, and clearly out of reach of Voynich or anyone. Or, if translated, Voynich content which is too perfectly flawless to have been invented later: Forgers always leave "tells". Or, content in the text which Voynich could not have known about, because what is described in the text was discovered after 1912: Not this, but for an example of what I mean here: Say, a description of the contents of King Tut's Tomb, which was not uncovered until 1921.

But something about what you said about needing expert opinion to help you make this decision: This is an interesting facet of this whole "Listen to the Experts"... or not... discussion. Kinda from the other side, the way you put it. You are the case of someone who would really want to hear what the experts say, in that it may help you decide what the Voynich really is. But you have essentially the same problem as everyone, because virtually all the experts disagree with one another. So how do you decide who to pick? But then, the mere fact that you HAVE to choose really negates the value of whatever you are left with, I think, because again, it is you who actually has decided who's opinion to accept.

I mean, it comes down to the same problem as anyone: You have to judge who to listen to, and who to reject. It would be like defusing a bomb, and three bomb disposal experts tell each tell you to cut a different wire, or you will be blown to Hell. One says cut the red, the other, blue, and the third, yellow. What that means is that you have to listen to all three, their knowledge, experience, thier records of not getting people blown to Hell (or who lost the fewest). And then... guess what? In the end, frantically needing to cut a wire, you still have to pick one of those experts, yourself.

But you haven't really picked anyone. What you have actually done is listened to everything they all told you, and then made up your own mind. And that is really what everyone does, and I do, and is the point here. So even in your situation, that you genuinely and honestly are looking for guidance toward "the truth of the matter", and not simply wanting to support any personal bias or pre-conception, you STILL have to decide for yourself. We all are doing that, I mean, anyway, and you are in the same boat as all of us. So that is what you will probably have to do: Listen to everyone, learn everything, then decide what you think the Voynich is. There is really no other way to do it, and nobody, really, does it any other way, because it would be impossible.

Luckily no bomb will go off if you make a mistake, in our case.