- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[Results] State of the Voynich 2020
- [Results] State of the Voynich 2020
-
[Results] State of the Voynich 2020
Koen G > 21-01-2020, 10:58 AM
With Wladimir's contribution, we reached 21 participants, beating 2017 by a large margin. Thanks to all who took the time to answer the questions. A few people submitted only a partial list, I included those whenever possible.
The purpose of this exercise was to find out where the people who frequent this forum stand as a whole, and how this evolves over time. Of course this is a gross abstraction, since people are forced to answer "yes" or "no". In future editions, maybe it would be better to use percentages to express to what degree one agrees with the statement?
Here are the results. The percentages reflect the amount of respondents who were more inclined to answer "yes" than "no" to the question. Behind the question I'll add the amount of increase or decrease compared to 2017.
18% Is the majority of the plants exotic? (-5 compared to 2017)
19% Is the manuscript any kind of hoax? (+19)
20% Is the manuscript authored by a known historical figure? (-3)
26% Is alchemy an important part of the manuscript? (+11)
30% Will there be any breakthrough in Voynich studies in 2020? (-63)
33% Have the images been made ambiguous or otherwise strange to conceal their true meaning? (+13)
47% Has the text been purposefully enciphered to conceal its meaning? (-20)
52% Have (part of) your views about the MS changed notably over the last few years? (new question)
55% Is medicine an important part of the MS? (-12)
70% Are the plants meant to refer to real plants? (-23)
71% Is the MS the creative product of one mind? (+4)
80% Do the images match the text? (-20)
84% Will we ever be able to read the MS? (-16)
85% Is astronomy and/or astrology an important part of the MS? (-2)
90% Does the text contain any meaning? (-10)
A thread throughout the results is the decrease of optimism and our belief that we can make sense of the manuscript. Only 30% of respondents expect a breakthrough this year, compared to 93% in 2017. Fewer respondents believe that the plants refer to real plants, that the images match the text, and that we will ever be able to read the manuscript. These statements still stand at 70% or more though, so we remain optimistic overall
The statement "is the MS any kind of hoax" went up to 19% (from 0), but this is one of the questions which should be rephrased or split by next edition since it covers a wide array of possibilities, and one may answer yes or no depending on the definition of hoax used. The same goes for example for the question about real plants.
The respondents who most often agreed with the majority opinion on polarizing questions were Anton, AgaTentakulus and MarcoP. The members who disagreed most often with the majority were DONJCH, Stephen Carlson and Wladimir. -
RE: [Results] State of the Voynich 2020
-JKP- > 21-01-2020, 11:22 AM
Thank you for taking the time to do this, Koen. -
RE: [Results] State of the Voynich 2020
Anton > 21-01-2020, 11:59 AM
-
RE: [Results] State of the Voynich 2020
MarcoP > 21-01-2020, 08:47 PM
In 2017 three questions scored 100%, now none does. There seems to be a convergence towards maximum uncertainty (50%): low-ranking answers get higher scores, high-ranking answers decrease.
Second law of thermodynamics? -
RE: [Results] State of the Voynich 2020
Koen G > 21-01-2020, 09:32 PM
(21-01-2020, 08:47 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In 2017 three questions scored 100%, now none does. There seems to be a convergence towards maximum uncertainty (50%): low-ranking answers get higher scores, high-ranking answers decrease.
Ha, true. I remember last time I wrote that all questions were fairly polarizing with not much in the area around 50%.
Second law of thermodynamics?
I wonder if the results would become even pore "thermodynamic" if people were allowed to answer with percentages instead of 1/0.
