The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

It is a typical and well-documented phenomenon in psychology that the more people have to defend their beliefs, the more convinced they become of them...

OK, I don't know the particular "phenomenon" you are referring to, but for the sake of this comment I'll accept it. But I'll point out that a great many different psychological and other effects are often used to disparage the arguments of an opponent, and they are of course (similarly) false arguments, because they (purposefully?) deflect from the merits of the points being argued. Maybe some in the Voynich field suffer from Dunning-Kruger? Does that make the actual argument they use invalid? Of course not. I've seen Occam's razor used a million times, for every different Voynich theory under the Sun, on all "sides". And for whatever reason, many wonderful people "on the spectrum" are for some reason "drawn" to the Voynich.. I'm not a psychologist, as you are, but I have some lay theories as to why that is.

But like I said, let me temporarily accept your premise, which was clearly being suggested is the case, in my case, and see how it relates to me, or not, in contrast to the people furiously defending 1420 Genuine European Herbal. Contrast and compare:

1) I have never stated I am "convinced" of my theory. While I strongly believe in it, I always state what is opinion, AS opinion, or part of my hypothesis. On the contrary, the 1420 Genuine Theory is frequently stated as absolute fact, in these very pages, and in books, lectures, and websites, even by several people who post here. For instance, terms such as "we know that" this or that is true or false, or some unknown thing is stated as "impossible", rather than improbable, and so on. One good example is an incorrect claim, written by Zandbergen and Prinke in the introduction of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., boldly claiming that my own modern forgery theory was "disproved" (by name! They name me! How unfair, let alone incorrect). No, it was never "disproved", rather it is their opinion it is incorrect, much as it is my opinion theirs and yours is incorrect.

If you search Rene's site for terms such as "we know that", and the like, you will see this effect quite often. I'm not picking on you, in particular, Rene, but you are the premiere Voynich information source, and your site is a deservedly a "go to" as it is inarguably the best source with the most detailed information. But it is impossible to know what is fact, and what is opinion, when it is rife with statements like this, "That this collection of mansucripts has been rebound is briefly mentioned in the catalogue of Vat.Lat. 11414-11709, written in 1959 by Mgr. J. Ruysschaert (5), where we read that this was done by the Jesuits of the Collegium Romanum. From all this we know that the present cover of the Voynich MS was added (presumably replacing an earlier one) by the Roman Jesuits, i.e. after the MS was received by Kircher." (Italics mine of course).

No, we don't "know" that cover was added... that is Rene's opinion. This is a very important distinction, and occurs dozens of times in these pages alone. I could literally fill a book with such absolute claims, in which speculative opinion is incorrectly and yet boldly stated as fact.

Another case of this would be the assertion and enforcement of the premise that 1420 Genuine European Herbal is, or should be, a "baseline", or "foundational" understanding of the nature of the Voynich. That was argued, again, on the Ninja's, for instance, and that baseline belief guides the structure of the topics here. And that is fine for people to believe that 1420 is the starting point, but it is a clear sign that they are, as Rene is, as you seem to be, "convinced" that the Voynich is, indeed, 1420 Genuine. I am not, I do not do that. For every idea I have in my blog, and on my forum, I meticulously separate what we know for certain, and what is the opinion of myself and others. If, for the sake of brevity I do not, in some particular argument I am making, make it clear, I try to rectify this.

Two more cases of this would be the mutation of the very thin evidence that both the 1903 catalog entry, and this "Wildmann" story have anything to do with the Voynich, into firm assertions that they absolutely do. Sometimes the very same people who first state they "may be" the Voynich later say they "are mentions" of the Voynich. No, I do not do that, I wouldn't. It would be unfair to my readers. It would be unfair to you. Maybe if I was "convinced" of something they imply, but I am not.

So the base premise of your claim does not even apply to me, but rather, demonstrably to the bulk of those who are "convinced" the Voynich is 1420 and genuine. Wouldn't that then mean, for these people, who do argue as strongly and often as I do, that they are the ones, who suffer from this "well-documented phenomenon in psychology [in which] the more people have to defend their beliefs, the more convinced they become of them"?

2) You may not have been around enough to know this, but I am one of the very few... if not the ONLY Voynich researcher who has change my fundamental opinions about the Voynich not one, but two times! Starting in 2007, I proposed the hypothesis that it was Cornelius Drebbel's notebook, based on the similarity of the cylinders to 17th century microscopes, and the often projected "understanding" that the Voynich was in the Court of Rudolf II. Drebbel was the chief alchemist and botanist to Rudolf in the early 17th century. This fledgling theory resulted in my article in the (now defunct, it seems) Renaissance Magazine titled, "The Voynich Manuscript: Drebbel's Lost Notebook?". Note the question mark. Over time, after many discussions on the Voynich Net Mailing list, and in various forums, and after discussions with experts on Drebbel... Hubert Van Onna became a friend, who came to the USA for a lecture tour, and spent a day with me, and disagreed with me on this... I mean, I dug DEEP into Drebbel, his inventions, the microscope...

... and because of all this, I changed my mind on my entire hypothesis. I gave it up. I felt it was not reasonable, any longer, that this was written by Drebbel.

I then looked into the possibility that this was some sort of "homage", some 17th century "fan fiction", meant to reflect the content of Francis Bacon's The New Atlantis. This, because so much content of the Voynich does reflect the fictional and real arts and sciences imagined by Francis Bacon in his seminal Utopian fiction. And I was "there" about a year or so, again discussing this hypothesis vigorously, until I gradually came to believe my hypothesis was not sufficiently founded to merit continuing pursuing it. In fact one of the problems with both theories was the constant, and correct complaint that many of the microscopes I saw comparisons to were far too new for Drebbel or F. Bacon. Yes, they are... my critics helped me realize that the Voynich was probably newer than that, while they saw the same features I did, and discarded them (if you want to apply "phenomenons", look up "Purple Cow Syndrome"). 

So, again to your assertion I suffer from this phenomenon, quite the opposite. Yes, I argue vigorously, and passionately, but you have mistaken that for a type of self-convincing fervor. It is the opposite. I test the components of my hypotheses insistently, strongly, but that is my means of testing them. When they seem incorrect, as strongly as I defend them, I will admit it, give them up, and move on to where the evidence takes me.

3) On the contrary, and as I have often pointed out, in order to defend the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal Theory, the facts have to be bent to fit it, or ignored, or misstated, rather than doing science the proper way, and letting the evidence define the truth. I've pointed this out a great many times, because it needs to happen, it does happen, and in real time. As an example... and I was around long enough to see this unfold many, many times... before the 2009 Radiocarbon dating, the vast majority of other dating theories were nowhere near 1420! So for a brief time after the release of the 1404-1438 range, it was understood, and properly reported, that that dating showed many theories wrong, that even "the experts got it wrong". But rather than this now revealed discrepancy between the expert opinion and the dating results being used properly, and an explanation sought, the Genuine field... this "baseline"... morphed the reality of expert opinion, and quickly, and all these years since, into the false claim that "The Experts Got it Right". Well, they did "in a way", I believe, but not in the way that was palatable to those who were "convinced" the Voynich was genuine. 

And you see this "phenomenon" each and every day, practically. It bends the findings and facts, sometimes in almost humorous, convoluted ways, in order to "fit" this preconception of 1420 Genuine. Look at what just happened with the watermark of the Marci letter, added to the already long list of damning characteristics of the letter, practically screaming out "I'M FAKE!"... the watermark does not match the other Marci Letter paper? Easy, it he had lots of paper. The Latin of the Letter is bad? Well you told me this imaginary scribe wrote the letter to "explain" this. So, the scribe had a different watermark, easy. But why would the scribe write in Marci's bad Latin? Crickets.

This pervasive, constant effect, needed to shore up a supposedly strong and "baseline" hypothesis... 1420 Genuine... is a necessary part of the process, and an adverse affect of people who are "convinced" of something they will defend at any costs. I could literally cite over a hundred cases of this, I am certain. Heck, I probably have by now! But I'll give just one more, which I find practically as definitive of this effect of "adjusting the facts to fit the preconception of 1420 Genuine", and that appears in the very book Yale published on the Voynich in 2017 (16? I forget). This is a gem:

"“The quantity and size of the foldouts in the Voynich Manuscript are very unusual for the time period; it is rare to find so many large pieces of parchment folded into a single textblock, and this seems to indicate authenticity: In the twentieth century it would be quite difficult to find this many large sheets of genuine medieval parchment in order to produce a forgery.”

That is clearly, at first, an honest observation and scholarly opinion... i.e. "foldouts are very unusual for the time period" (1420), which of course is a big problem for the Voynich, as it is an admitted, and gross, anachronism. But quickly that "wound" heals itself, with the... actually incorrect... assertion that this unusual feature is a sign of authenticity! What? And this has since been realized, by those supporting 1420, I think, because there is a new answer given, today, when I ask (I think I am the only person who does ask, by the way), "Since only 10% of all medieval manuscripts have survived, other examples of foldouts probably exist among them, therefore we cannot say that the foldouts are unusual [anymore?]". 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Well of course that is another rationalization, and unscientific, as much of science, and philosophy, and criminal law for that matter, relies on, and trusts, the principle of "sampling". I mean, if testing soil, one does not truck the entire acre of soil into the lab, they take many "samples" across the property... far less than 10% in fact... to determine the nature of all of it.

Well, OK, since you asked, one more: Most are not aware, but the neat and clean "1404-1438" date range was "created" by averaging the actual date range of the individual samples of calfskin, admittedly based on the "assumption" that the Voynich is genuine, and made within ten years or so. That is logically, "We are 'convinced' the Voynich is genuine and old, therefore we will manipulate these dating results to fit genuine and old". By the way, I am not saying the 60 + date range of the samples... from 1365 to 1497... "means" the Voynich is a fake. But what it does mean is what it says, and a great number of opinions would and should arise from this... it is valuable information, which people have a right to know, in order to come to their own opinions, form their own hypotheses.

So in conclusion, your assertion that I suffer from this "phenomenon", as it was clearly directed at me, is provably false. I do not present my ideas in a way that belies me being "convinced" of my ideas, such as wrongly stating my opinions as fact; I have provably shown that, even though I argue strongly, I have been, and are again completely ready to change my mind, and reformulate new hypotheses, and on the contrary, the very effect you wrongly describe for me, is amply demonstrated by the majority of people who are "convinced" the Voynich "must be" a 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal. 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.