RE: Voynich theories and Voynich solutions
ReneZ > 14-08-2017, 07:15 AM
My initial post, and my aim for this thread, was not to single out any particular theory, but to point out some generic issues.
When talking about arguments, rather than theories, it becomes a bit more difficult to remain generic, but there are still some important points. All of the following is based on being involved in Voynich discussions of all nature for over 2 decades.
Arguments are of course what most discussions are made of.
Arguments can be valid, invalid, and everything in between.
(Probably valid, possibly valid, unknown, unprovable, largely invalid, etc).
Most often it is not known whether arguments are valid, and it is a matter of opinion. This usually gives rise to discussions that do not come to any conclusion.
More valid arguments are those based on evidence, records.
Less valid arguments include:
- points that are factually incorrect
- opinions that have been formulated to appear as fact (happens a lot!!)
And, of course, arguments can be built in order to support a theory. These are not invalid a priori, but stand a good chance of being invalid. This is particularly the case for the 'group 3' theories in the opening post:
since there usually is no good evidence for any of these theories, they tend to build on arguments.
To make matters even more interesting, everything that can be said about arguments, also applies to 'counter-arguments', meaning statement like:
"Your argument is wrong because of (this or that)".
Some typical cases that occur not infrequently:
1) A theory is brought forward supported by some arguments.
These are countered by some counter-arguments, which go into the direction: that cannot be true, or could not have happened. This prompts the reaction that these counter-arguments need to be proven, which is usually impossible.
The discussion should never be: prove that I am wrong.
After all, the original argument was that something is proposed as likely to be true, not that it is hypothetically possible to be true.
2) Arguments in favour of a certain theory are brought forward.
These are not valid, but it requires very specific familiarity with the topic to be able to judge that.
99% of people who are only generally familiar with the MS cannot follow it, and even among those who are very familiar, there are only a handful who can really understand it (or even care).
A typical case of point 2 was mentioned earlier by Koen, namely issues related to the Marci letter.
There are actually two such issues, and the argument applies to both of them.
One is that the letter cannot be believed because Marci lost his memory when he wrote it.
The other is that the letter is a modern fake by Voynich.
These, and other arguments are not only brought forward to support a specific theory, but also to suggest that a lot of "knowledge" about the MS is supposedly not correct.
Rejecting them is possible, but requires patience and attention by the reader.
And again it becomes a case of the question: whom are we trying to convince:
- the proponent of the argument often (usually?) does not want to be convinced
- the people who are familiar with the topic already understand