Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

[MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz)]

One of the interesting parts of the elephant that can prevent us from seeing it as a whole is how we go about our own ways of seeing it, even if there is something there to be seen—which is not always the case, since we may substitute our own imaginations for what we claim to be seeing.

Before I joined this forum, and still, I had/have not had a chance to read all there is here, or elsewhere online, about the Voynich manuscript research. So, I did not even imagine that some who have been researching it for decades would come to the conclusion, as far as they know, that all or even most (or even some) of its visual features are mere decorations!

Of course, all are entitled to their opinions and I hope they can succeed in convincing others, but that point of view seems odd. With that logic, one can ignore basically everything in the manuscript, and by claiming to have seen the seven stars and read its label, he or she can declare the puzzle solved altogether. That is one reason hoax theories seem not convincing to others, since that is basically a hoax theory (partially or not), decorated as a valid point of view.

If this is what a "theory of origin" is claiming, since I had expressed my agreement with the approach, I would like to clarify that I can't subscribe to this particular approach in any shape or form. "Theory of origin" can mean a whole variety of things, and in my view, focusing on the manuscript's authorship identification primarily by way of its visuals, we can have a much better chance of solving the puzzle, if at all possible.

You find a mysterious ancient painting, parts missing. You can try the best you can to read the mind of its artist by way of its contents, whether the meanings make sense to anyone or not. After all, you can draw a painting in a way that would make sense to you but not to others. And in a work of art it is reasonable to expect the artist would create it in a way that could have many meanings.

But, if you find clues therein that may serve as the signature of its author, despite efforts made by others to erase it, then you can have a much better chance of even understanding why the artist painted what it is. After all, even decorations have a reason to be there as they are depicted, and not in other ways.

Another way of seeing the elephant has been by way of finding other manuscripts that supposedly serve as an inspiration or source for the Voynich manuscript.

It seems odd to me that never it is seriously considered, even choosing that way of going about it, that the influence could have been the other way around. In other words, you are assuming that the Voynich manuscript had not circulated enough to influence other sources on its own, which is, for all practical purposes, contrary to the physical evidence of the manuscript, showing active use and handling.

If you have excluded the possibility of the so-called "draft" used for the manuscript as having been a full draft and used in 1300s, and you do not subscribe yet to the possibility that it may have been a personal handbook, then you should be considering that it may have itself been a source of inspiration for anything that showed up in 1400s or later. But oddly the elephant is not seen this way also.

Another odd and interesting trend seems to be, aside from this assumption that silence equals peer review, is that those peer reviewing are supposedly themselves in strong grounds as experts in the field. 

This is quite odd especially in the Voynich manuscript research, when even claiming experts do not know what is going on in the book. 

I mean, can anyone claim to be an expert in the VM research, without considering that they may be wrong, and therefore be a bit more humble in claiming or presenting themselves as experts? I have pointed out even some errors on websites of the experts and they have yet to be corrected, since, perhaps, they did not find the corrections worthy to be even read and acknowledged (A Gemini sign is still described as a Scorpius sign ...).

For decades, as they claim themselves, they have not been able to read a word in the manuscript despite all those magnificent transcription systems that have obvious visual errors as I have pointed out (despite the odd justifications made by those using them), and so on, and, as far as visuals go, some are not even considering that using Zodiac systems would have been the most scientific and precise way of exploring and depicting stars' influence on whatever it is they were studying. Some judge other contributions as if they already have the answer, and how they have gone about doing things is any better than those views they are rejecting outright, valid or not, or in silence.

"Peer review" is a catch phrase than anyone can use to dismiss others' views, just by evoking it. As if expressing an opinion passes as a scientific peer review automatically, rather than as expressing an opinion. So, depending on how long one has been around, one finds it justified to consider oneself as more of an expert than others to judge them worthy or not. Why is there such an assumption is quite hard to understand, especially coming from scientists.

Rather, the opposite may be also true. Those who have researched the topic for decades and claim not having found anything read therein in its text may not be the best judge of anything new that comes up.

First, they may have an interest in proving their own lack of finding results as a justification for what others may be contributing in different ways. "Been there, done that!" is rather an easy way of going about doing "peer review."

Second, they may be expecting that others use the very same ways of seeing the elephant that they have tried for years and decades, and finding others approaches to be different, they summarily pass on their judgments, in silence or not.

But the notion of "peer review" should itself be a topic of scientific evaluation and peer reviewing for those scientifically inclined. No?

As a sociologist of knowledge, and of science, and having been asked to peer review manuscripts (still I am during retirement, but I don't get involved since I don't believe in the validity of the prevailing peer reviewing systems in academia anymore), I have actually studied scientific peer review, published critical studies in an acaemic journal I founed (available in academic databases worldwide), and been a journal editor myself, so I am very familiar with what passes as peer review in universities today.

The notion of blind peer review, be it single or double, is a fallacy that can never EVER exist. It is simply a contradiction in terms, and it is duplicitously used to maintain certain knowledge status quo in academia. As an editor, if you choose among some to peer review, you are  already influencing the results, no matter what they say. And if they say A or B, your judging them as worthy or not itself negates the very nature of a "blind" peer review process, since the editor certainly knows who peer reviewed or not.

There is no way any editor can hire supposed blind reviewers, without impressing their own biases or preferences, or judgments, on the process, whether in choosing the reviewers, or reading and judging their opinions. Opinions is all they are. Otherwise, peer reviewers would then need to be regarded as gods (which does not exist in science, supposedly), or that their own peer reviews, or own articles themselves, are not in need of peer review themselves and in turn.

Peer review is essential for science. No question about that. But fallacies of single or blind peer review only serve to mask the reality that even in academic evaluation biases can exist, and they are in fact more inclined to do so when blinded or pseudonymed. You deal with bias scientifically, but transparently acknowledge them in public, not by way of hiding them under blinded carpets. You don't even know who expressed an opinion, where they are coming from, what credentials they themselves have, what interest they may have in expressing their opinions, how many "connections" have been present in processeing their publications, and so on.

The best peer review is one that is entirely transparent, expressed (not silent), not pseudonymed, and available for the scientific public to see and evaluate independently, with the reviewer and the reviewed having an opportunity to directly engage with one another to prove each other right or wrong, or both.

As I have quoted it elsewhere, this may be of interest to read again, "“(Mr. Rosen and I) sent our publication to you without the authorization that you may show it to other specialists before it is printed. I do not see any reason to follow your anonymous reviewer’s recommendations (which incidentally are erroneous). In view of the foregoing, I will consider having the work published elsewhere” (Albert Einstein, as quoted in Alice Calaprice 2011:388-389).

Even a valid peer review does NOT guarantee the results being proven eternally correct and true. You can find evidence of that throughout the history of science. In fact, that is what science is all about. There is no final answer, final finding, final word, on anything.

The truth of the matter is that the existing peer reviewing systems have served well the reproduction of hierarchical systems in academia, and blinded/pseudonymed peer reviews, let alone silent ones, have served well in obscuring the sources of opinions expressed, interests involved, and the role established networks can play a role in perpetuating certain evaluative systems and results.