-JKP- > 27-08-2017, 05:32 PM
(27-08-2017, 05:08 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
As far as I know, Stephen Bax has always acknowledged his sources, both on his blog and in his papers.
If there are people who carelessly quote his blog failing to appropriately credit specific contributors, this is their problem, not Stephen's.
I think the problem with the Voynich community is not so much that when ideas are quoted the authors are not credited, but that bad ideas are more often quoted than good ideas.
Koen G > 27-08-2017, 07:44 PM
-JKP- > 27-08-2017, 07:51 PM
(27-08-2017, 07:44 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP: don't forget that there will surely be more interviews to follow. Different viewers will prefer different types of interviewees, so I'm mixing it up as much as possible.
About group discussions, I have one thing in mind, which is more of an "online brainstorm" rather than a debate. For example, a discussion about the direction Voynich studies should go should be interesting with people like Nick.
VViews > 27-08-2017, 08:41 PM
davidjackson > 27-08-2017, 08:45 PM
Koen G > 27-08-2017, 09:08 PM
-JKP- > 27-08-2017, 09:41 PM
(27-08-2017, 09:08 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Bax, however, isn't heard that often lately and he's not active on the forum. On his "blog" he posts the work of others, and he responds mostly to comments by newcomers.
MarcoP > 28-08-2017, 02:16 PM
(27-08-2017, 08:45 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Woah, lot of excitement here. Let's lay out our objectives first.
We're currently interviewing experts on Voynich related subjects. We're not discussing solutions here.
So when we interview prof Bax, or anyone else in the current series, it will purely be as a professional in his field of expertise.
We have a vague script outlining the questions, although this changes depending upon the thrust of the conversation. If the subject wishes, they can see the questions in advance (in this series).
We certainly have no intention of getting into a solution specific discussion. But if we do, then we will be prearmed with material to cross examine the witness. If, and only if, they want to venture into that territory.
nickpelling > 28-08-2017, 04:47 PM
Vonologia > 02-09-2017, 06:45 AM
(28-08-2017, 04:47 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For what it's worth, I just re-read Bax's (2014) "A proposed partial decoding of the Voynich script".
If you have had the misfortune to read many Voynich theories, you'll immediately recognize almost all the things Bax does:
* dismissing previous research as somehow misguided ("all of Currier’s examples can be explained straightforwardly as no more than idiosyncratic scribal differences when writing the same language, of a kind and a degree typical of the period")
* the "house of cards" argument structure, where each component part is claimed to support each other part
* heavy reliance on the results of preceding Voynich theories (Taurus, Sherwood), all the while silently bracketing out the way in which those wonky results were reached
* selective hypotheses that are true when useful and false otherwise (how can the Voynich be an abjad system some of the time and not the rest?)
* viewing the whole of recorded history as a giant grab bag of word-fragments to dip into as useful
* referring to famous historical decryptions as though the exact same methodology is being applied (it isn't)
* relying on polyglot and wobbly historical spelling to smooth over the many internal inconsistencies that immediately present themselves to the reader.
Never mind any of the details (which are also pretty terrible), the first big problem is how to tell Bax's paper apart from any Voynich theory you can name, when he does exactly the same kind of things in exactly the same kind of way that they do.