ReneZ > 16-03-2021, 09:16 PM
(16-03-2021, 06:32 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But you know well what I mean here, Rene,
proto57 > 19-03-2021, 04:23 PM
(16-03-2021, 09:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-03-2021, 06:32 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But you know well what I mean here, Rene,
Perhaps. I tried to avoid having to guess.
However, it is really inconsistent to, on the one hand, quibble about terminology, and then on the other to expect people to guess what is meant with what you say.
You have used the term "genuine 15th century cipher herbal" (and similar) on your blog as the opposite of "fake by Voynich". That isn't correct. The opposite is just: "genuine 15th century". What sort of genuine 15th century book it really is, is another story.
(16-03-2021, 09:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now, saying that "genuine 15th century" is just a theory like any other, is exactly what I called rhetoric.
It is not advancing our understanding of the manuscript in any way.
Just like all hundreds of thousands of manuscripts in the libraries of the world, this manuscript is genuine until proven otherwise.
(16-03-2021, 09:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The right people to raise a suspicion, and then to perhaps prove it, are the conservators, the historians and the forensic experts who have handled the manuscript.The "right people". And that is another way of dismissing challenges to a paradigm: Claim a challenge is invalid, as it does not rise to a proper level of expertise. Well first of all, more experts, from more fields, have been wrong about the Voynich than have been right. Many are provably still wrong about it. Picking only those experts one deems right, then saying most experts are right, is unscientific. Secondly, you and I both accept many non-expert opinions and observations. That is fine, we all make up our minds about it. But if one chooses the "right people" only by those who give opinions we agree with, anything can be said to be true, or false. There are "right people" available to back up an opinion under the sun. Thirdly, if we actually listen to what the experts actually tell us they observed, it turns out that it is not necessarily what you want to believe. Just read the Yale book carefully, and read my rebuttal to your "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." page. Because you relied heavily on the Yale book, it is a good place to start.
(16-03-2021, 09:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This has been done, more so than the vast majority of manuscripts in the world, and it passed with flying colours.
People interested in this should read the reports of actual fakes, like the "Archaic Mark" and the more recent Galilei fake, to see how this process works.
proto57 > 19-03-2021, 04:41 PM
R. Sale > 19-03-2021, 06:14 PM
Aga Tentakulus > 20-03-2021, 12:32 AM
R. Sale > 20-03-2021, 06:06 PM
Aga Tentakulus > 20-03-2021, 07:28 PM
R. Sale > 20-03-2021, 11:32 PM
ReneZ > 21-03-2021, 08:49 AM
(12-03-2021, 08:52 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The question is not whether the MS could or could not be meaningless. It could be either, no doubt. The question is whether it is meaningful or not.
Likewise, the question is not whether the MS could or could not be a modern fake, or whether Voynich would or would not have done this. The question is whether it is, and whether he did it.
If one looks at the discussions on these topics with this in mind, it is easy to see which discussions have no chance of leading anywhere...
proto57 > 21-03-2021, 09:18 PM
(21-03-2021, 08:49 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Fakes exist, but the fact that they exist is not sufficient to support the argument that the Voynich MS is one. For exactly the same reason one could argue that the Mona Lisa is a fake.But that is an invention on your part, a complete straw man creation, because I did not, and do not, say "... the fact that [fakes] exist [is] sufficient to support the argument that the Voynich is one". Re-stating my actual arguments into something easily rebuttable is no argument at all. But it causes me to spin my wheels, and forces me to point this out... as all such false arguments about what I really believe, and what I really am saying. So it is effective in that regard, but is not helpful to anyone who wants to see a real debate on this subject.
(21-03-2021, 08:49 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just one example: worm holes could have been faked. Indeed, this is possible but that is not the question (see above).
All the details that Wladimir found in the binding could have been faked in 1912.
But was it really?
The answer from the experts is clear.
(21-03-2021, 08:49 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, such an eminent and unprecedented fake, without any codicological flaw, of a genuine 15th century manuscript would never be sold as a 17th century herbal from Jacobus de Tepenec.
Jacobus who???
And on parchment...
(21-03-2021, 08:49 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have one page dealing with the modern fake theory:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
That should be enough. Rich has complained that I took down the second one, but this theory is already getting far too much attention. There are so many other more interesting ones that barely get any attention.
And I don't want to write more than necessary about what is NOT.