07-06-2024, 12:50 PM
Dear Tavie,
Artificial intelligence has already written down its own weaknesses and strengths, and I shared the AI answer to this question here. Essentially, it is necessary to learn to ask questions to artificial intelligence. It is also important which version of artificial intelligence you use, but you should not expect to get a logical answer to a ridiculous or incorrectly constructed question. I wanted different articles to be compared on issues such as whether the evidence presented was consistent and concrete, and the nature of the linguistic criticism they drew on. Artificial intelligence can perform such a task very well and clearly. This is not like asking artificial intelligence to make an invention, but this is exactly one of the jobs that artificial intelligence can do.
You may not see any scientific approach, method, or detail in our work, and I wouldn't be surprised at all. To understand whether a subject is evaluated according to a scientific approach anr-or criteria, it is first necessary to know how science conducts similar studies. Anyone who lacks sufficient knowledge of how linguistics handles these types of tasks is in the same situation as you, and this is quite normal and understandable.
What scientific methods were followed in reading Hittite, Hatti inscriptions, and Egyptian, and Luwian hieroglyphs? Those who see no scientific merit in our current work should look back at the methods used to read ancient inscriptions. We have followed the practices of comparative linguistics in various methods and details in our VM-related study, which were not used in the process of reading the inscriptions of civilizations like the Luwian, Hittites, and Hattis.
Do you know how the inscriptions unearthed in the Boğazköy and Karatepe-Aslantaş archaeological excavations in the 1950s were read by British Prof. James Mellaart? Or are you familiar with the details of "similar works" by Prof. Dr. Helmuth Th. Bossert? (I have two articles on this subject, and in a separate chapter in our VM study-related book, I also talk about the methods of carrying out this ancient inscription reading, with evidence and quotes from these Bossert, & Mellaart articles.)
The inscription reading studies they conducted and the articles they wrote on these subjects should not have had any place on any scientific criteria scale. They made largely imaginative, baseless, and fabricated readings based on flimsy "evidence". One of them tried to piece together different inscription stones that were one or two kilometers apart and had different depth codes like a puzzle for years. When they couldn't do that, they completed the broken and missing parts of the inscriptions with their own hands.
While doing these completions, they had no historical reference points. Today, these inscriptions are in museums, and their reading stories (fairy tales) continue to be referenced in the articles written in your universities.
In other words, Western linguistics universities have produced and continue to produce thousands of articles referencing their (Prof. James Mellaart & Prof. Dr. Helmuth Th. Bossert's) work.
It would be best if you first examined in detail how the studies were conducted in the past and how the reading of inscriptions/texts containing writing characters encountered for the first time progressed. If possible, find and read the originals of the articles written on these subjects, and then you can think about how scientific our work is or isn't. The way to bring criticism on such a topic should first be to identify the academic studies to compare our work with and the methods used in those studies.
So, to make a comparison, you need to have at least two materials.
Our article presents the most concrete scientific evidence explaining that the Voynich texts are a natural language. Because we have now clearly proven which language the texts contain, through readings and structural overlaps. The machine already understands this, but it feels the need to show a certain area in gray when making a statement. Because by seeing the hundreds of thousands of "VM-unreadable" news and claims remaining in the data pool, he leaves an open door to his own opinion. This is due to the choice of its software developers.
Additionally, there may be certain shortcomings in our work, but the methods we used and the evidence presented cannot be deemed incorrect. It is not necessary to use all known methods together to reach a conclusion. A researcher conducting scientific work can use any method they choose. The main goal is to reach evidence. In our study, we reached concrete results and evidence of different natures and showed similar ones in dictionaries, other manuscripts, and by referencing academic articles.
Those who can claim that our work lacks scientific direction are expected to be familiar with the history of academic and scientific studies on how unreadable or first-encountered inscriptions have been made readable.
We used the most well-known methods of linguistics in our work and documented them. If anyone still thinks our work is unscientific, they would, in a way, be rejecting the methods of modern comparative linguistics.
The thoughts in your mind remain just thoughts in your mind. For the thoughts in your mind to express a point on a scientific scale, you must first know how linguistics handles these tasks. Therefore, I recommend that individuals with insufficient knowledge on a particular subject first acquire information on the topic they are discussing or criticizing. These matters do not progress with worthless personal opinions or incorrect inferences.
First, examine the inscription reading studies had been conducted by Prof. James Mellaart and Prof. Dr. Helmuth Th. Bossert. Also, scrutinize the evidence they presented in their articles on these studies (if you can find a single concrete piece of evidence) in terms of reality, quality, and consistency. Only then might you have a benchmark to evaluate the evidence and results presented in our articles. Otherwise, you can express your opinion, but the opinion or view you express will not have any value on a scientific scale.
Regards,
Artificial intelligence has already written down its own weaknesses and strengths, and I shared the AI answer to this question here. Essentially, it is necessary to learn to ask questions to artificial intelligence. It is also important which version of artificial intelligence you use, but you should not expect to get a logical answer to a ridiculous or incorrectly constructed question. I wanted different articles to be compared on issues such as whether the evidence presented was consistent and concrete, and the nature of the linguistic criticism they drew on. Artificial intelligence can perform such a task very well and clearly. This is not like asking artificial intelligence to make an invention, but this is exactly one of the jobs that artificial intelligence can do.
You may not see any scientific approach, method, or detail in our work, and I wouldn't be surprised at all. To understand whether a subject is evaluated according to a scientific approach anr-or criteria, it is first necessary to know how science conducts similar studies. Anyone who lacks sufficient knowledge of how linguistics handles these types of tasks is in the same situation as you, and this is quite normal and understandable.
What scientific methods were followed in reading Hittite, Hatti inscriptions, and Egyptian, and Luwian hieroglyphs? Those who see no scientific merit in our current work should look back at the methods used to read ancient inscriptions. We have followed the practices of comparative linguistics in various methods and details in our VM-related study, which were not used in the process of reading the inscriptions of civilizations like the Luwian, Hittites, and Hattis.
Do you know how the inscriptions unearthed in the Boğazköy and Karatepe-Aslantaş archaeological excavations in the 1950s were read by British Prof. James Mellaart? Or are you familiar with the details of "similar works" by Prof. Dr. Helmuth Th. Bossert? (I have two articles on this subject, and in a separate chapter in our VM study-related book, I also talk about the methods of carrying out this ancient inscription reading, with evidence and quotes from these Bossert, & Mellaart articles.)
The inscription reading studies they conducted and the articles they wrote on these subjects should not have had any place on any scientific criteria scale. They made largely imaginative, baseless, and fabricated readings based on flimsy "evidence". One of them tried to piece together different inscription stones that were one or two kilometers apart and had different depth codes like a puzzle for years. When they couldn't do that, they completed the broken and missing parts of the inscriptions with their own hands.
While doing these completions, they had no historical reference points. Today, these inscriptions are in museums, and their reading stories (fairy tales) continue to be referenced in the articles written in your universities.
In other words, Western linguistics universities have produced and continue to produce thousands of articles referencing their (Prof. James Mellaart & Prof. Dr. Helmuth Th. Bossert's) work.
It would be best if you first examined in detail how the studies were conducted in the past and how the reading of inscriptions/texts containing writing characters encountered for the first time progressed. If possible, find and read the originals of the articles written on these subjects, and then you can think about how scientific our work is or isn't. The way to bring criticism on such a topic should first be to identify the academic studies to compare our work with and the methods used in those studies.
So, to make a comparison, you need to have at least two materials.
Our article presents the most concrete scientific evidence explaining that the Voynich texts are a natural language. Because we have now clearly proven which language the texts contain, through readings and structural overlaps. The machine already understands this, but it feels the need to show a certain area in gray when making a statement. Because by seeing the hundreds of thousands of "VM-unreadable" news and claims remaining in the data pool, he leaves an open door to his own opinion. This is due to the choice of its software developers.
Additionally, there may be certain shortcomings in our work, but the methods we used and the evidence presented cannot be deemed incorrect. It is not necessary to use all known methods together to reach a conclusion. A researcher conducting scientific work can use any method they choose. The main goal is to reach evidence. In our study, we reached concrete results and evidence of different natures and showed similar ones in dictionaries, other manuscripts, and by referencing academic articles.
Those who can claim that our work lacks scientific direction are expected to be familiar with the history of academic and scientific studies on how unreadable or first-encountered inscriptions have been made readable.
We used the most well-known methods of linguistics in our work and documented them. If anyone still thinks our work is unscientific, they would, in a way, be rejecting the methods of modern comparative linguistics.
The thoughts in your mind remain just thoughts in your mind. For the thoughts in your mind to express a point on a scientific scale, you must first know how linguistics handles these tasks. Therefore, I recommend that individuals with insufficient knowledge on a particular subject first acquire information on the topic they are discussing or criticizing. These matters do not progress with worthless personal opinions or incorrect inferences.
First, examine the inscription reading studies had been conducted by Prof. James Mellaart and Prof. Dr. Helmuth Th. Bossert. Also, scrutinize the evidence they presented in their articles on these studies (if you can find a single concrete piece of evidence) in terms of reality, quality, and consistency. Only then might you have a benchmark to evaluate the evidence and results presented in our articles. Otherwise, you can express your opinion, but the opinion or view you express will not have any value on a scientific scale.
Regards,