17-09-2016, 12:33 PM
Anton,
You could put up a poll saying just about anything you liked, and people would still vote according to what they believed, or what "felt right".
The chronic difficulty with this whole effort to study the manuscript is that it is very difficult to re-examine the fundamental assumptions and habits. Such as the habit of calling the botanical images "a herbal" and of presuming it a work in the Latin European tradition. Ask people to vote on whether the "roots and leaves" section is a "pharma" section and I guess you'd get close to a 100% voting "yes".
There's no real argument ever been made for the botanical folios being a "herbal" - it's just presumed and all the effort has gone into trying to prove that hypothesis; almost none into investigating its basis. Even more so for the 'roots and leaves' section.
So whether or not the random group of people assembled here happen to believe, or not believe, one of the old ideas, isn't going to do much except inhibit the sort of basic re-think of those ideas which so badly needs doing... and which is exactly why Koen proposed, and I supported the establishment of this forum.
Because everywhere else that open questions are proposed for research, the line of enquiry so soon de-rails or is bogged down by a return to yet more images from an incredibly limited geographic range and one medium, from Latin Europe.
The "Yes/no" sort of poll can't prove anything so; and "what we all agree" can only then make open investigation of any historical, or iconographic issue seem like a disturbance of the peace.
I agree with Koen. It would be great to put up a research question - such as: what is the evidence for, and against, our habit of describing the 'roots and leaves' section as a "pharma" section. Not "commonsense" or "obviously" - because 'commonsense' isn't evidence.
Anyway - I'm on hols. so that's all I can contribute here.
Quote:But the poll is just to approve or disapprove the proposed statements
You could put up a poll saying just about anything you liked, and people would still vote according to what they believed, or what "felt right".
The chronic difficulty with this whole effort to study the manuscript is that it is very difficult to re-examine the fundamental assumptions and habits. Such as the habit of calling the botanical images "a herbal" and of presuming it a work in the Latin European tradition. Ask people to vote on whether the "roots and leaves" section is a "pharma" section and I guess you'd get close to a 100% voting "yes".
There's no real argument ever been made for the botanical folios being a "herbal" - it's just presumed and all the effort has gone into trying to prove that hypothesis; almost none into investigating its basis. Even more so for the 'roots and leaves' section.
So whether or not the random group of people assembled here happen to believe, or not believe, one of the old ideas, isn't going to do much except inhibit the sort of basic re-think of those ideas which so badly needs doing... and which is exactly why Koen proposed, and I supported the establishment of this forum.
Because everywhere else that open questions are proposed for research, the line of enquiry so soon de-rails or is bogged down by a return to yet more images from an incredibly limited geographic range and one medium, from Latin Europe.
The "Yes/no" sort of poll can't prove anything so; and "what we all agree" can only then make open investigation of any historical, or iconographic issue seem like a disturbance of the peace.
I agree with Koen. It would be great to put up a research question - such as: what is the evidence for, and against, our habit of describing the 'roots and leaves' section as a "pharma" section. Not "commonsense" or "obviously" - because 'commonsense' isn't evidence.
Anyway - I'm on hols. so that's all I can contribute here.