The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

as far as we know, [the VMS] has only ever had European owners

We do not know that.  We only know its whereabouts and its owners since ~1600, which is almost 200 years after the C14 date for the vellum.  And that is assuming that Jacobus's signature is not a librarian's mistake or a forgery by Wilfrid, hypotheses that I think are rather unlikely but far from impossible.  And assuming that the VMS is indeed the book that Baresch and Marci discussed with Kircher; which ditto ditto.

Either way, we do not know where the VMS was or who owned it between 1400 and 1600.  The fact that it was in Europe after that time would make the European Language theory a bit more likely than ts alternatives; but that a priori advantage has vanished by now.

In the example you mentioned, we’re still talking about a European language, which is exactly what the paleography seems to point to. The manuscript looks European, shows European influences, uses a European writing style ... . On top of that, this fits neatly with the carbon dating and with what most VMS scholars (Lisa, etc...) already think.

Yes, yes, yes, I know... 

Over 100 years of intense scrutiny by the best cryptographers and paleographers have failed to produce even a tiny crumb of result.  The reason is that everybody who stood a chance of solving the riddle -- meaning, anybody who knew what a medieval manuscript was -- made the same stupid mistake.

They could see that the material is European, the writing instrument is European, the ink is European (well, it should be) the character shapes look European, the writing direction and the formatting into paragraphs is European, the Zodiac sign icons are European, the nymph dresses, hats, hairdos are European, the castles and T-O maps and cloudbands are European, the wormholes look European, the goulash stains look European, the letters of the marginal scribbles look European...

..and so they concluded that, therefore, obviously, the Author must have been European, the language must be European, and the contents must be a product of European culture.

But that is a gross logical error.

A non-sequitur.  The conclusion does not follow from the premise. 

You cannot put a "therefore" there.

All those "European" material and writing details are superficial.  Those "European" features in the illustrations are decoration, not contents.  They do not say anything about the actual contents or the language.   At most, they suggest that the Scribe who provided them was European.  (But even that is now looking less and less likely.  But we can leave this point for another message.)

In fact, those details that are likely to be part of the contents do not look European at all.  Like the fact that the Zodiac starts with Pisces and is divided into 12 sets of 30 things (or 24 of 15), and each of those 360 things has a distinct short name.  The structure of the diagrams in Cosmo.  The anatomical drawings in Bio.  And, above all, the text -- which absolutely does not look like an European language.

Probability theory says that a rational person should modify whatever prior probabilities he had for competing hypotheses according to whether the consequences predicted by those hypotheses are seen to occur or not.  

The European Language hypothesis made various specific predictions about word statistics and patterns, that all failed.  But most importantly it predicted that 100 years of efforts by the best cryptographers in the world would produce at least some result.  

That prediction has thoroughly failed.

On the other hand, the Chinese Language theory made several predictions about word statistics and patterns that were generally verified.  And, most importantly, it predicted that anyone who tried to crack the enigma by starting from the assumption that the language was European (or Semitic, Turkic, Dravidian, whatever) would of course fail. 

A prediction that has been extensively verified.

So, please, people, isn't it time to admit that the "therefore" above was wrong?  

All the best, --stolfi