- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
"Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
- "Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
-
"Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
ReneZ > 18-02-2017, 08:28 AM
(15-02-2017, 05:38 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.History is not an exact science in the sense of chemistry or computing the ballistics or whatever you call it of satellites (sorry, Rene).
I have no problem with that
In fact, I think it is important to be able to accept that something is 'not known'. At least 'at the present time' and based on the available evidence. That also happens all the time in the so-called exact sciences.
While it may seem unsatisfactory not to be able to answer something, this may simply be the reality. The way forward is either to find more evidence, or accept that there is no way out of the situation.
It is tempting to just 'decide' one way or the other what one prefers. This helps to get out of the unpleasant situation of not knowing. However, then one has to be able to change one's opinion whenever new or better information arises.
The capability to reject one's own ideas when better ones arrive is what matters.
This may be easier in exact sciences than in the humanities, because usually the evidence is much stronger and much more quantitative, and the mindset is therefore a different one. It is expected to happen a lot.
Entrenching oneself with one's hypothesis against unpleasant evidence, and tactics like sweeping it under the carpet or discrediting their source are just not going to work for very long. -
RE: "Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
-JKP- > 18-02-2017, 08:41 AM
(18-02-2017, 08:28 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(15-02-2017, 05:38 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.History is not an exact science in the sense of chemistry or computing the ballistics or whatever you call it of satellites (sorry, Rene).
I have no problem with that
In fact, I think it is important to be able to accept that something is 'not known'. At least 'at the present time' and based on the available evidence. That also happens all the time in the so-called exact sciences.
Totally agree.
René wrote: This may be easier in exact sciences than in the humanities, because usually the evidence is much stronger and much more quantitative, and the mindset is therefore a different one. It is expected to happen a lot.
Even the "exact sciences" (if physics could ever be considered in that category) have their demons. Take quantum mechanics as one example. -
RE: "Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
ReneZ > 18-02-2017, 08:52 AM
JKP: yes, there are many 'hot topics' also in the so-called exact sciences.
(Even in cases where they have not been taken over by politicians).
There will always be people who are ready to change their opinion and others who are not. -
RE: "Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
nickpelling > 18-02-2017, 10:52 AM
Quantum mechanics is a very misleading example of doubt: the contradiction there is in our simplistic models for explaining nature (wave / particle), not in Nature herself.
The whole edge of scientific research is predicated on trying to resolve doubts and uncertainties through hypotheses and experiments: no different to Voynich research, except that few there seem bothered about testing hypotheses... so maybe that's the real problem. -
RE: "Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
Koen G > 18-02-2017, 12:15 PM
I guess the difference with exact sciences is that they generally have a very practical component. Like that you'll find out the hard way when something is wrong. Like when some communications device they sent out into space was malfunctioning, turned out they forgot to account for the doppler effect.
We don't really have such a test, so I agree that we must always be aware of this. Likely all of us are wrong about a number of things we believe about the manuscript. I communicate openly about having changed my mind because that's just the honest thing to do both to others and towards oneself. There is no shame in advancing or revolutionizing insights, on the contrary. Without it we'd still be living in caves
Being explicit about unknowns is part of the same story. Every hypothesis we put forward will have some holes in it, some problems. Pointing those out is in effect a suggestion for further research, which can only be encouraged.
It's also important what Nick says about hypotheses. They are absolutely required because they offer some foothold, frames of reference. But they must remain hypotheses until enough evidence has been found. -
RE: "Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
davidjackson > 18-02-2017, 09:51 PM
The real Voynich issue are people (who sometimes should know better) randomly throwing out ideas without bothering to look at the manuscript as a whole.
Take that recent Mexican astronomer who got himself into the papers suggesting that an eclipse was shown. The whole theory was laughably untenable, based simply on a supposed Bax word and an image that looks like an eclipse, if you squint.
It's basically a passing thought that has been parcelled up as a "theory". No effort has been put into it, it has not been developed and there is no attempt to link the idea into any research thrust (with the exception of the Bax word).
In any other field of research, such lacklustre theories would not be countenanced for one second, and anyone presenting one should be ashamed. Yet for some reason, in the world of the Voynich, we are supposed to nod and take them seriously, and people get into the newspaper on the back of them.
It is, I suppose, because the field is open to amateurs who are actively encouraged to come along and put their ha'pennyworth in.
And from this, we get into the situation where people quickly become emotionally involved in their theories. Any attempt to critique their theory is perceived as a personal attack and the whole thing becomes personal. And now we're back at ReneZ's original point
Personally, I think we ought to get a fund up. And every-time someone presents a ridiculous theory, I get to fly out to whatever part of the world they live in and custard pie them. That should clear the field a bit
-
RE: "Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
nickpelling > 18-02-2017, 10:27 PM
There are two obvious problems:
(1) There aren't enough custard pies in the world.
(2) After the first ten pies, people would start to tell you how great they tasted, and what an honour it was to receive one in the face -
RE: "Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
nickpelling > 18-02-2017, 10:44 PM
I should perhaps add that I personally spend a lot of time trying to come up with ideas and hypotheses about the Voynich Manuscript that can (and hopefully in the future will) be tested. So I can confirm that this part of the research equation is at least possible.
However, I only wish that (a) it was more than just me trying to do this, and that (b) there had been any noticeable appetite for testing hypotheses. -
RE: "Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
ReneZ > 19-02-2017, 08:17 AM
My main point, or at least what triggered my post, was that, while there are clear differences between the humanities and the 'exact sciences', these may not be so fundamental. It is certainly possible to do what one might call 'scientific' work in the humanities.
The second point was not to try to 'force decisions' when the information to do that is insufficient.
At the same time, it is perfectly valid to work on the basis of assumptions, as long as one does not overestimate the probability that the assumptions are correct.
I don't think that the Voynich MS is entirely unique as a field of unbounded amateur attention.
While all cases are different, there is also Egyptology, with its theories about the pyramids and the sphinx(es),
or "life in the universe" (especially when it comes to supposed visits to Earth).
There's much more, and each has its own community. -
RE: "Not knowing", or changing one's mind.
Koen G > 19-02-2017, 08:46 AM
(19-02-2017, 08:17 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think that the Voynich MS is entirely unique as a field of unbounded amateur attention.
While all cases are different, there is also Egyptology, with its theories about the pyramids and the sphinx(es),
or "life in the universe" (especially when it comes to supposed visits to Earth).
There's much more, and each has its own community.
That is definitely true. It's hard to study ancient Egypt without running into one of the various groups of crazies. There's also some kind of "black theorists" who even go as far as to Photoshop pictures of Egyptian art to make the people in it appear darker. Obviously Egyptians were not black or white, they were Egyptians. They identified by their culture, not their color. But this issue is so extremely emotional and sensitive that here we see even professional scholars taking sides.
So people going crazy in theory wars and being blinded by what they want to believe is far from unique to Voynich studies.
The real question is though, how can we stand above this? All of us are in over our heads, and we all have some emotional bonds to some hypotheses, pieces of evidence, ideas... How do we ensure that we remain objective?