- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
- Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
-
RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
ReneZ > 24-08-2020, 07:18 PM
(24-08-2020, 04:00 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rene, buddy, you sound depressed.
David, if I were, I would probably be offended... You don't really know me.
The point of my opening post was really to indicate that there are some discussions that show after a while if they have any chance of leading anywhere, and that it may be a good idea to recognise this and react on it.
As Anton already anticipated and detected, some of my points have not failed to prove themselves in the follow-on posts.
There are plenty of interesting areas to explore, and there are areas that are not.
In the second category:
- trench wars about theories
- discussions who is an expert, who knows more, who knows better
There are some people doing great work on the MS, both in this forum and outside. -
RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
davidjackson > 24-08-2020, 08:02 PM
Sorry Rene, not "depressed" depressed, depressed as in... today I'm a bit tired and grumpy.
No offence meant, obviously. -
RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
nickpelling > 24-08-2020, 08:13 PM
One of the best aspects of Voynich research in the last few years has been from the collaborative threads looking at the connections between Voynich drawings and drawings in 15th century European manuscripts, many started by Koen.
In recent months, I've been trying to work out an analogous methodology / approach for replicating that kind of collaboration in the context of the Voynichese text.
The technical challenge there is to find a way of working that doesn't presuppose a specific class of answer, and yet is sufficiently clear in its objective that people can clearly see its value.
It has taken a while, but it's starting to take shape. Perhaps in time it will form a resource as interesting as Dave Oranchak's list of Zodiac Cipher statistical features. :-) -
RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
Anton > 24-08-2020, 08:24 PM
-
RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
Mark Knowles > 24-08-2020, 08:30 PM
(24-08-2020, 07:18 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(24-08-2020, 04:00 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rene, buddy, you sound depressed.
David, if I were, I would probably be offended... You don't really know me.
The point of my opening post was really to indicate that there are some discussions that show after a while if they have any chance of leading anywhere, and that it may be a good idea to recognise this and react on it.
As Anton already anticipated and detected, some of my points have not failed to prove themselves in the follow-on posts.
There are plenty of interesting areas to explore, and there are areas that are not.
In the second category:
- trench wars about theories
- discussions who is an expert, who knows more, who knows better
There are some people doing great work on the MS, both in this forum and outside.
In this thread, I , myself, have been keen to emphasise that discussions or "implications" about who knows more or better can be problematic. Likewise, as I have made clear, I am to keen that we move away from the notion of someone being an expert.
I should say that I find Rene often makes the implication that he "knows more and knows better" and I find it unhelpful. I think different opinions are good, but I very much feel that I have to view all researchers on much more of a level playing field rather than some researchers acting as if they are an "expert" even if they don't explicitly say it.
Statements like: "Most of these people are not *at all* receptive of any type of advice."
Rather than "Most of these people are not *at all* receptive of any type of "different opinion'."
Would be a better way of phrasing and thinking about it as the term "advice" again subtly implies expertise, which is indicative of a mindset.
I have one opinion of many and wouldn't generally feel it my place to describe myself as providing "advice" to other researchers, though certainly opinions. Especially if or when that advice turns out not to be helpful. A case in point when it came to my recent plant matching work I was advised that it had pretty much all been done, turns out that it far from the truth. Discouraging or advising researchers from pursuing valid areas of research is a problem; there can be little or no debate that this is an objectively valid area of research. Some areas of research may yield results or may not, but if they could they are worth pursuing. I have been working very hard to collect a large number of pre-1447 ciphers, unavailable except by direct contact with the archives, how useful this is to do remains to be seen, but it is incontrovertibly it is a valid line of research. Contacting experts on medieval maps to discuss whether the rosettes folio is a map should be incontrovertibly a useful endeavour. So when someone "advises" someone else against these courses of actions it can present a problem.
Recently Marco Ponzi advised me on the subject of making public documents from archives. When I treated his opinion as doubtful, as it seemed inconsistent with what archivists had previously told me, he was quite rude to me. Being in contact with archivists their legal opinion differs markedly from his, so his rudeness was misplaced. I was Just Asking Questions to obtain the correct answer.
I have for a long time found it difficult that there has been a tendency to construct hierarchies of expertise even if not explicitly said so.
I think we could all, myself included, do with saying "this is my opinion, but I might be wrong". -
RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
Mark Knowles > 24-08-2020, 08:37 PM
(24-08-2020, 08:24 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(24-08-2020, 07:01 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think if anyone proposes a theory they should be directed to the Voynich Ninja Forum and explained how it to post it there where people can read it if they want to or not.
By all means!
Sorry, that was meant as a general response that could and maybe should be given to anyone proposing a new theory. So if someone contacts Rene or the Beinecke then they could just be pointed to this website and directed how to post their theory here.
Obviously, I know personally that I can do that, but I was just suggesting a procedure for new theories. -
RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
-JKP- > 24-08-2020, 09:14 PM
(24-08-2020, 05:03 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
So then what percentage do you think you have matched?
I would say that I have matched between 40% and 45%.
That is not something I can judge alone. My work has to go in front of the community to be vetted and peer-reviewed. People with good judgment might not accept some of the matches.
Similarly, you are self-judging your success rate, but whether that number holds after peer review cannot be decided until the results have been released.
One of the advantages I have is 13 years of studying medieval plant drawings (and a lifelong interest in plants). I can look through a medieval manuscript and identify a very high percentage of the drawings, even if they are poorly drawn, without looking at labels. How much of this applies to the VMS is difficult to judge. Not all the VMS plant drawings follow conventional patterns. -
RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
MichelleL11 > 24-08-2020, 09:29 PM
(24-08-2020, 04:24 PM)doranchak Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems every field of study is plagued by this problem. Here's a good example: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Hi, Dave:
That article was interesting.
I hope you're not implying that studying the VM is the cipher equivalent of angle trisection.
Although I guess with time spent an impression of impossibility does inch ever closer . . . but in all our defenses (yes, I'm including Torsten in this
), impossibility has definitely not been unequivocally proven. 
-
RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
Mark Knowles > 24-08-2020, 09:34 PM
(24-08-2020, 09:14 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(24-08-2020, 05:03 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
So then what percentage do you think you have matched?
I would say that I have matched between 40% and 45%.
That is not something I can judge alone. My work has to go in front of the community to be vetted and peer-reviewed. People with good judgment might not accept some of the matches.
Similarly, you are self-judging your success rate, but whether that number holds after peer review cannot be decided until the results have been released.
One of the advantages I have is 13 years of studying medieval plant drawings (and a lifelong interest in plants). I can look through a medieval manuscript and identify a very high percentage of the drawings, even if they are poorly drawn, without looking at labels. How much of this applies to the VMS is difficult to judge. Not all the VMS plant drawings follow conventional patterns.
So if you cannot judge and it is up to others to judge then why did you introduce the figure of "20%", surely that is a judgement you are making?
There is no formal way of saying that any 2 drawings match even the ones that look most similar as no 2 are identical. -
RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
-JKP- > 24-08-2020, 09:38 PM
I was basing that number of on some of the attempts I have seen over the years that have been discussed or presented online. It's just a general ballpark. Many have attempted it and only found a few. What I was trying to get across is that it's a challenging project.