The Voynich Manuscript: Understanding the Untranslatable with Lisa Fagin Davis

[asteckley]

In this podcast Lisa Davis makes several claims about the Voynich text. I would like to ask for the published sources supporting these claims, since I'm only aware of published research arguing against them.
...

I don't see so much of a problem with your use of AI as others do. People need to catch up with the fact that it is now a commonly used tool in virtually all fields of writing -- as common as spell checkers, if not more.

I have a very different problem with your posts though. I've noticed a a real pattern where  you seem to want to be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable -- particularly when it comes to Lisa Fagin-Davis for some reason. When Lisa publishes, posts, or speaks publicly, you repeatedly look for an opportunity to issue a challenge or pick it all apart.

Case in point is your post above. It doesn't seem at all like a sincere attempt to locate some unfamiliar research or to really understand the basis of Lisa’s views. Let's be honest -- you are already familiar with the relevant literature and with the principal arguments on both sides. So it is obvious that you're are asking for sources more to portray her statements as uninformed or indefensible.

It is not like your list of responses on the various issues showed that they have been conclusively resolved against Lisa’s views. We all know that Voynich research is full of problems where the evidence remains ambiguous. The references you cite contribute to various debates; they don't bring any of them to an end.

I agree with some of Lisa's opinions and I disagree with some of them too. And I can agree that there is room to criticize the degree of certainty with which some of her statements were expressed.  “Almost certainly,” “perfectly,” and similar words arguably convey more certainty than the available evidence warrants on some of these issues. And, if that is your objection, then it's fair enough that you make it, and make directly ... once, maybe twice. But do you have to object every single time Lisa publishes, posts, or speaks about Voynich matters?

Your disagreeing is not itself the problem. Like I said, I've disagreed with her on some things too and haven't hesitated to say so. But the problem here is the persistent adversarial responses on issues that you know perfectly well remain open. And without offereng any new evidence or new reasoning on the matters.

Lisa’s judgments may be debatable, but so are yours. IMO, it would be more respectable to criticize claims with an aim to clarify the evidence and move the understanding of the various issues forward, not simply to create another occasion for a public denunciation of someone who hasn't bought into all of your own assessments.