Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[Ahmet Ardıç]

[Scientific consensus exists for a reason: it reflects our best knowledge based on the information we currently have. Clinging to fringe theories does not make you braver or smarter than those who follow the majority opinion - quite on the contrary.
Is it a coincidence that both your views on linguistics and on the Voynich clash with the scientific consensus in favor of an increased importance of your own cultural heritage?]

Dear Koen G,

Deciphering the Voynich Manuscript (VM) and having the knowledge to evaluate the findings in the field of linguistics is not coincidental. I also have enough information to understand whether a widely accepted belief in the scientific field is based on personal inferences or concrete evidence.

All personal opinions not based on evidence have always been and will always be open to human error.

Let's give an example:
For instance, linguists mostly think that "the culture that first invented writing must have been a settled culture because the need to create schools and books could only have arisen in a settled culture."
Do you think this widespread view can be logical? Where is the evidence that supports this kind of inference?

The proponents of this view will say that the writing culture was born in settled societies and in the cities established by humans after the transition to agriculture. They can also show the Sumerian cuneiform tablets as evidence. Those who want to support this view will say that the earliest known examples of writing can be seen in the earliest known early-city societies.

This kind of view is taught in linguistics books, becomes a widespread opinion, and is adopted by the majority. From this point on, the articles written by researchers who do not accept the majority as correct are considered extreme opinions, and the evidence they present is not examined and discussed enough. However, science has been able to make progress in every field thanks to those who put forward different ideas.

Here, the different opinion does not have to be correct either, but if logical inferences based on sufficient evidence are put forward, even if they are not correct, they will result in deeper examination and more detailed consideration of the issues. Therefore, I can say that it is an ignorant and foolish approach to belittle opposing views in the scientific field.

Societies that invented writing cannot be settled societies, and if the oldest known settled society used a writing system, this writing system must have been developed in the previous periods by nomadic cultures. Nomads had to leave marks carved on rocks in the areas they passed through and stayed for a while, such as where the water sources are, where the hunting is more abundant, where the danger is, who died where, and which direction to go. Because it is impossible for them not to carve these descriptive and pre-determined marks on the terrain if they want to return the same way themselves or if other relatives from the same tribe want to travel in the same direction after them. Therefore, the beginning of early writing or the drawing and classification of defining images and pictures must have been realized by nomadic groups thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago. Central Asian steppes, Europe, Anatolia and the American continent are full of these kinds of marks, and each group must have had separate tamgas or defining marks.

We can say that the widespread view that writing was discovered by settled peoples is weaker than the possibility that it was discovered by nomads. Science advances by putting forward stronger inferences. Writing may have developed and evolved into alphabetic writing in settled cultures, but its invention was most likely a discovery of nomadic cultures.

I think you understand this. The importance of what the majority believes in is irrelevant. Science cannot ignore the findings that logic and mathematical probabilities push upwards forever. The Indo-European language theory is also a majority inference with weak aspects, but we have pierced this theory countless times and we continue this effort in the name of science.

I know how my writings will be criticized and with what arguments. However, we have presented all the evidence that refutes these criticisms many times. I and others are doing this in the name of science.