Casanova decryption claim

[nablator]

I only have a paper copy.

The PDF of the thesis (French) is listed among other articles :
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It's full of hypothesis and careful analysis. He has come a long way since the thesis, his published articles are increasingly making weakly supported claims. Now this... I did not know about this latest article in the ARCSI bulletin n°45. English translation:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This is why Voynich research is a fringe subject: too many researchers are only trying to confirm their theories instead of looking for ways to test them.

[Koen G]

This is why Voynich research is a fringe subject: too many researchers are only trying to confirm their theories instead of looking for ways to test them.

"The Voynich theorist" in a nutshell. With the additional complication that so many claims are as unfalsifiable as they are unproven.

[-JKP-]

... too many researchers are only trying to confirm their theories instead of looking for ways to test them.

          ^^^^
           | | | |_______
           | | |_______
           | |_______
           |______

[nickpelling]

In his latest Voynich work, Casanova has arranged lots of sensible pieces of ideas into an overall shape that doesn't really make any sense. It takes time to write  these up, so don't expect a Cipher Mysteries review quickly.

But then again, all Voynich theories (so far) are cautionary tales, so what do you expect?

[Emma May Smith]

In his latest Voynich work, Casanova has arranged lots of sensible pieces of ideas into an overall shape that doesn't really make any sense. It takes time to write  these up, so don't expect a Cipher Mysteries review quickly.

But then again, all Voynich theories (so far) are cautionary tales, so what do you expect?

Frankly, why bother? So many attempted solutions are drearily similar. It must be possible to create a tragic typology of where solutions go wrong.

[-JKP-]

Most of them suffer from the same problems:

• Inadequate knowledge of whatever medieval language they claim it to be (usually Latin, but the same applies to others).
  
• Haste in accepting what seems to work for a few words without rigorous attempts to apply it to larger sections of the text (eagerness to get credit for "solving" it? or just hasty, inadequate research?).
  
• Subjective tweaking of tokens to make them "work" (inserting letters, changing their designations whenever the system doesn't quite work, or flat-out invention, etc.). This seems to happen even more extensively when the system IS applied to larger sections of text.
  
• Willingness to accept text that is not cohesive and self-referential (e.g., bad or nonexistent grammar or phrases that are awkward and don't seem to belong together).
  
• Clinging to an idea that almost seems to work, and adapting a stubborn defiance against going back to the drawing board (or at least to erase the parts that don't seem to be working). You cannot solve a Rubik's cube unless you are willing to step back and even UNDO your work and come at it again from another perspective.
  

I'd like to add one more that may not be as obvious but which seems to occur rather frequently. Many of these theorists seem to assume no one else has thought of their idea (that they are onto something original) because it hasn't been published when, in fact, many of these ideas HAVE been tried but they weren't published BECAUSE THEY DON'T WORK (or don't meet a certain standard). Not everyone is in a hurry to publish what they know to be unfinished or wrong-headed "solutions".