- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
- New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
-
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
Mark Knowles > 27-04-2024, 04:27 PM
(27-04-2024, 04:18 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You have sort of "switched gears" here, and now reintroduced another argument for the disregarding of experts: Is this one or that one "enough" of an expert, or the right type of expertise, or experienced enough, or had enough familiarity with the Voynich, etc.. Which is fine, really, but not pertinent to the point of my accepting their dating, and yet coming to different conclusions as to what their disparity of opinion tells us.
I also note you went to the "low hanging fruit" of the case of poor Romaine Newbold, and avoid the less vulnerable reputations of Panofsky, O'Neil, Singer, and so on. But I would say that, despite his being led astray by various provably and proven incorrect ideas about the Voynich, he did have a respectable reputation before that, if a somewhat tarnished on after his Voynich fiasco.
We can always find some nugget of gold in even the worst collection of clap trap. I don't agree with you, I mean, that it must be all or nothing, when it comes to anyone's opinion. One risks "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" if we do.
But
I have not "switched gears" as you put it. I have said all along that you don't listen to the people you call "experts" and that it is doubtful that most of them are experts anyway. That has been my consistent position. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
proto57 > 27-04-2024, 05:10 PM
(27-04-2024, 04:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(27-04-2024, 04:18 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You have sort of "switched gears" here, and now reintroduced another argument for the disregarding of experts: Is this one or that one "enough" of an expert, or the right type of expertise, or experienced enough, or had enough familiarity with the Voynich, etc.. Which is fine, really, but not pertinent to the point of my accepting their dating, and yet coming to different conclusions as to what their disparity of opinion tells us.
I also note you went to the "low hanging fruit" of the case of poor Romaine Newbold, and avoid the less vulnerable reputations of Panofsky, O'Neil, Singer, and so on. But I would say that, despite his being led astray by various provably and proven incorrect ideas about the Voynich, he did have a respectable reputation before that, if a somewhat tarnished on after his Voynich fiasco.
We can always find some nugget of gold in even the worst collection of clap trap. I don't agree with you, I mean, that it must be all or nothing, when it comes to anyone's opinion. One risks "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" if we do.
But
I have not "switched gears" as you put it. I have said all along that you don't listen to the people you call "experts"...
Well of course anyone can access my actual word on this issue, what I actually do, and my reasoning behind doing it... and then judge the veracity of your statement as they choose. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
asteckley > 28-04-2024, 12:09 AM
(27-04-2024, 06:04 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(26-04-2024, 07:47 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your point seems to be that the variation in dating amongst the people you call experts is so great that it demonstrates that there is a fundamental problem with their datings and so it must be a modern forgery.
I guess I missed it. I've never seen him say that.
Hi Andrew,
see this blog post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and then play the video.
Of course, this is now 7 years ago and Rich may want to add if he has changed his opinion on any of these points.
Thanks Rene for referring to that video. I've seen it before, but had forgotten how good it was.
My comment that I've "never seen him say that" was not in relation to any of its content though. It
was in reference to the comment that Rich has ever said or suggested "it must be a modern forgery".
I've just never seen him claim that in this thread, in that video, or anywhere else.
One can excuse the occasional mistake of using the wrong word (like "must" when one means "might"),
but not when it is done over and over again within a discussion where the difference is critical to the topic at hand.
In contrast to that, Rich seems to be pretty precise in always conveying what is fact and what is possible inference-from-fact.
Certainly if he hasn't on some occasion said it precisely, I've never noticed and have never had any problem
understanding what his words are intending to convey.
On the flip side, I've seen both in this thread and in others, logically flawed or outrightly incorrect statements
made pretty frequently. Two cases of that behavior that come to mind are when it is stated as fact that the
C-14 tests prove that the manuscript was written during the 15th century, and that it is
impossible for an illustration to depict (or more shockingly, impossible to resemble) a plant found in America
because the manuscript was created in Europe before 1492.
Given the length of this current thread and the incongruous claims being made about his claims, I
decided this morning that it would be worth the time to sit down
and watch that video again, while carefully listening to it one word at a time (well actually one phrase at a time),
looking for where he said anything that a reasonable person could misconstrue as stating that his ideas
were proof that his theory (or hypothesis) must be true or that the 15th century authentic theory must be false.
The closest thing -- and still a far cry from it -- was at one point where he said he “believes” the marginalia
(on f116v) was probably put there for effect and done in a different style not expecting it to ever be tested.
Beyond that, he has raised questions and pointed out inconsistencies. (And more recently, with this current thread, pointed out
the inconsistencies in how he has been admonished for something that many others are at least as guilty of.)
As I said, I had forgotten how good that presentation was. Everyone should take the time to go back and watch it,
whether they've seen it before or not. And by all means criticize it. But criticize what he actually says
(and not what he might have said if he irrationally believed no one else was right and that his observations were
being declared as "proof").
I would very much like to hear some reasoned arguments that explain why any of the red flags aren't actually red flags.
As far as the actual theories go, the reason I am not convinced of Rich's theory is because I haven't yet seen all
the evidence laid out and weighed in an objective way for and against each candidate theory. And so I'm not yet
convinced of any theory.
The main and strongest evidence I've been aware of for the 15th (or 16th) century theory had been the letters that
you (Rene) have written about. But frankly my view of the strength of that evidence for connecting them to the
Voynich manuscript went from moderate to weak, now that I see how uncertain the Latin translations actually are. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
kckluge > 28-04-2024, 08:30 AM
(21-04-2024, 12:43 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[...]
So essentially the claim that the Voynich manuscript is a modern forgery is virtually unfalsifiable. However that hardly makes it likely that it is a modern forgery and liklihood is key here.
[...]
This touches on a critical point, which is that whether a (generic) "modern forgery" theory is falsifiable and whether it is true are two unrelated questions. The problem with "modern forgery" theories being unfalsifiable isn't that unfalsifiability implies they're necessarily wrong -- it doesn't. We could decipher the bio section, and it could look like a Latin text on the health benefits of mineral baths, and someone could notice that the initial letters of the lines on the first page of the quire are an acrostic reading "Wilfrid Voynich me facit ha ha April Fools." The problem with unfalsifiability is that it makes it pointless to engage with any "modern forgery" theory as a theory. It only make sense to engage with individual claims made as part of advancing the theory to rebut those specific claims.
By the way, there may be a way to falsify the mss being a modern forgery, but it involves a (non-destructive) dating technique for estimating how long ago ink was applied to paper, parchment, or (although the texture of the surface makes it trickier) vellum that doesn't have much of a track record. When iron-based inks are applied to paper/parchment/vellum, over time iron ions migrate horizontally out from the ink into the surface, with how far they've migrated being correlated with how long ago the ink was applied -- see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the discussion of the method in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ("Surprisingly, there are only two applications of this method to authentication. Nickel (2009) has mentioned, but without scientific details, cases of (1) ‘‘Diary of Jack the Ripper,’’ supposedly from the end of nineteenth century, but dated by McNeil to 1921, and (2) the autograph of Abraham Lincoln, supposedly from 1863, dated by McNeil to 1869 +/- 10 years." -- so not a huge body of use or replication...)
Karl -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
Koen G > 28-04-2024, 11:37 AM
(28-04-2024, 08:30 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By the way, there may be a way to falsify the mss being a modern forgery
Call me jaded, but I've observed people arguing on the internet long enough to know this wouldn't change anyone's mind. If the results of the study don't match my point of view, that must mean the study has not been executed well. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
kckluge > 28-04-2024, 11:38 AM
(21-04-2024, 11:43 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(21-04-2024, 09:48 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't see ...
I can't respond to many your statements because they are simply declarations that overtly ignore the
explanations I provided. I am not trying to dismiss your responses - I just honestly can't conceive of how to break the logic down any further to make it easier to comprehend.
But I can leave you with the following two points. Of course, whether you choose to think them through or
not is entirely up to you.
1) If the modern forgery theory is "not falsifiable", then the alternative theory of authenticity must
necessarily be "not provable" ... fundamentally.
(because A=true implies not-A=false)
Yet I suspect some of those who hold your view about the modern forgery theory being not falsifiable still blithely imagine a scenario where the Voynich has been proven to be authentic.
2) Now I'm sure the response by some to the above point (if not by you, by some others) will be
"that's right - we can never know for sure if either is true".
And that's fine if you want to go that way. (There is some truth to it - because evidence is never "absolute";
it always ranges between very weak and very strong. I believe Rene alluded to the same thing earlier.
Mathematically, it is the reason we have to avoid probabilities being equal to 0.0 or 1.0 because various equations
inevitably blow up. But for practical purposes --i.e. in real life--, reasonable people accept that evidence can be either
strong enough, or weak enough, to provide an acceptable level of "proof" for or against a claim.)
If you don't want to accept evidence in a practical way -- that is, if you instead want to go with the "we can never know for sure if either is true" approach -- then
just be aware that that means there is no conceivable theory about the Voynich, or about anything else,
that is actually falsifiable (or provable). One can ALWAYS come up with some conceivable explanation and then an
explanation for the explanation, and on and on until someone jumps the shark with "it's just glitch in the matrix".
With regard to point 1, I doubt it because no one who understood the concept of falsifiability would ever commit the error of thinking that you can prove the Voynich is authentic. You can't. You can only (potentially) falsify it's authenticity.
With regard to point two, "we can never know for sure if either is true" does not logically imply that we could never know (or at the very least have high certainty) if the authenticity hypothesis is false if that's the case . That's the whole point of falsifiability, which was Popper's attempt to cut the Gordian knot with regard to the 400+ year debate about the problem of induction by saying you can't solve the problem of induction and putting forward falsifiability as an alternative way of thinking about what constitutes a "good" theory. With regard to the rest of that paragraph, I am aware that there is a position that claims falsification is impossible because all observations are theory laden. I do not find it persuasive. Your mileage may vary.
So suppose the C-14 dating had come back with a result that the calves whose hides were used died in the 1870s. It didn't -- but it could have. Had that happened, it's abstractly possible someone could have said, "well, the statement that the calves died in the 1870s is itself a heavily theory-laden claim that relies on a whole bunch of stuff being true all the way down to our theories about atomic structure, so
" or "maybe those samples all coincidentally happened to have several-dozen-standard-deviations-from-the-mean fewer decay events than average, so shrug-emoji" but I doubt anyone would have seriously entertained either of those positions.
Meanwhile, there is no result that the C-14 dating could have found that could have falsified a "modern forgery" theory because there's no reason for a modern forgery theory to predict any particular constraints on the dates of any of the samples. This is not a subtle point.
Karl -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
kckluge > 28-04-2024, 12:59 PM
(28-04-2024, 11:37 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(28-04-2024, 08:30 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By the way, there may be a way to falsify the mss being a modern forgery
Call me jaded, but I've observed people arguing on the internet long enough to know this wouldn't change anyone's mind. If the results of the study don't match my point of view, that must mean the study has not been executed well.
I believe there is a moral obligation to act as if some critical mass of the population consists of reasonable people who can be persuaded by evidence and rational argument regardless of whether or not that may be true... -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
proto57 > 28-04-2024, 02:01 PM
(28-04-2024, 11:38 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With regard to point 1, I doubt it because no one who understood the concept of falsifiability would ever commit the error of thinking that you can prove the Voynich is authentic. You can't. You can only (potentially) falsify it's authenticity.
With regard to point two, "we can never know for sure if either is true" does not logically imply that we could never know (or at the very least have high certainty) if the authenticity hypothesis is false if that's the case . That's the whole point of falsifiability, which was Popper's attempt to cut the Gordian knot with regard to the 400+ year debate about the problem of induction by saying you can't solve the problem of induction and putting forward falsifiability as an alternative way of thinking about what constitutes a "good" theory. With regard to the rest of that paragraph, I am aware that there is a position that claims falsification is impossible because all observations are theory laden. I do not find it persuasive. Your mileage may vary.
So suppose the C-14 dating had come back with a result that the calves whose hides were used died in the 1870s. It didn't -- but it could have. Had that happened, it's abstractly possible someone could have said, "well, the statement that the calves died in the 1870s is itself a heavily theory-laden claim that relies on a whole bunch of stuff being true all the way down to our theories about atomic structure, so " or "maybe those samples all coincidentally happened to have several-dozen-standard-deviations-from-the-mean fewer decay events than average, so shrug-emoji" but I doubt anyone would have seriously entertained either of those positions.
Meanwhile, there is no result that the C-14 dating could have found that could have falsified a "modern forgery" theory because there's no reason for a modern forgery theory to predict any particular constraints on the dates of any of the samples. This is not a subtle point.
Karl
The point of potential falsifiability of Modern Forgery has been addressed in this thread already, and they seem to have been missed. So this is a good place to reiterate them in a summary.
1) Anyone who believes that Modern Forgery has already been factually disproved has therefore also already ascertained that this hypothesis is falsifiable. Therefore, Karl, if you or others are now reopening the question of falisfiability of Modern Forgery, you are also conceding that (and I agree) 1420 Genuine is NOT proven. Maybe the camp on this is divided, and I would say it is... and goes back and forth on this issue, at one time conceding it has not been settled, but then claimed 1420 Genuine has been settled... sometimes by the same players. So the first thing to do, for anyone wanting to know the answer to falisfiability of modern forgery, would first have to decide if they think it is a proven fact that the Voynich is genuine, or not.
That is just one example of hundreds, above: If this is accepted as correct, then we also know that Zandbergen and Prinke have declared Modern Forgery falsifiable. But the internet is rife with descriptions of modern forgery being false, in one way or the other, either directly saying it is impossible, or disproved, or that 1420 Genuine has been proven... which is the same thing. If 1420 is proven true, then at the same time, modern forgery has been proven false, and therefore, falsifiable to those who hold this absolute view. Do you?
2) If, on the other hand, like me, one accepts that both 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal, and my own Modern Forgery theories have NOT been proven, then, yes, the question of falsifiabilty of both comes into play.
3) Using, as many have here, some imagined, potential response from me, or anyone (as in your imagined "1870 C14" responses, above), as what I would consider evidence to falsify my own theory, is a totally invalid method of determining this. Each person, of course, will have a different standard, that is normal. And I have my standards. But it becomes absurd to claim my theory is not falisfiable based on some imagined Straw Man Rich in the future, and what I would think. Rather, if my opinion on this is really being sought, then listen to my opinion, now. You can agree or disagree with my own standards of proof on this matter, but inventing standards for me makes no sense in any context. So the next points are what I would consider proof that the Voynich cannot be a forgery, and therefore demonstrate ample falisfiability of the Modern Forgery Hypothesis:
4) "I would NOT think that ink which carbon dated to the 15th century could reasonably be considered faked. As people have noted, and I agree, a forger in 1910 would not have predicted the upcoming advent of the radiocarbon dating process, and so they would not have gone through the trouble of, say, finding 500 year old galls to make it, or like that." So, if the "faded yellow", binder, or other component of the ink has sufficient organic compound to allow C14 testing, and is shown to be from, say, the 15th century, then Modern Forgery is false.
5) "[If] there is plain text content which would prove the manuscript genuine: If the information in the content is something that could not have been known to a 20th century forger, perhaps something revealed at a later date than 1912. There are many secrets of history only revealed in recent times, which a forger of 1910 could not have known... use your imagination, I could think of hundreds if I tried." This would prove the Modern Forgery Hypothesis false.
6) If an old, previously unknown source clearly points to the Voynich we see today: "There are still untapped archives and collections, which Voynich would have had no chance of having seen nor known about, because they were not opened or discovered until after 1910, or still are not. I think a copy of the Gospel of Thomas was found hidden in a pilaster of a staircase, where it clearly had been for centuries. And some Roman soldier's letters were found buried (and still readable) by Hadrian's wall. Cases like this are numerous... and while we can't know until we see it, of course such a source or item would [prove Modern Forgery false.
7) Additional items which are obviously in the same style and "language" of the Voynich, but which also have not been accessible to others. This would show that there was a genuine culture or discipline from which the Voynich had sprung from.
So, as I also wrote, on a previous thread:
(21-04-2024, 01:41 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And I've rejected supposed "proof of forgery", too, as I described. I was baited with a supposed letter by Wilfrid, which was to be produced for me if I went back to Italy to see it in person... they didn't want me to take pictures of it, and would not send me a copy. But it didn't pass the "smell test" to me, and I passed. I also rejected forged "proof of genuine", such as that fake Kircher book that excited people for awhile. Each item must be judged on its merits and failures, no matter if it supports my ideas or not.
So as I've said before, I see this very differently than many of you, in that it is not that my standards of proof of authenticity are so high, and impossible to meet, it is just that they are a bit higher than what is currently used to buttress genuine. Just because I don't accept what has been offered as "poof" does not mean nothing would meet the standard of "proof" to me. Not that other's standards are "wrong", but I would say that mine are not "wrong" either, we all just have different standards. And there are of course cases of standards of proof and disproof that transcend anyone's opinions, and which are unassailable, too... such as suggested here, carbon dating of the ink. Not everything rises to that level of standard, but I know that standard exists, and would acknowledge and accept that.
Anyway, I always think of that great comment by a US Supreme Court judge, when asked how one would know the difference between "art" and "pornography". He said of pornography (paraphrasing), "You will know it when you see it". Trouble is, one person's art is another's... you get the idea. This is all subjective, but I do have standards, too. I'm not close to the "genuine proof skeptic" you seem to think I am.
Alternatively, I have given clear reasons why I do not accept those things currently proposed as proof the Voynich is genuine. Many of you do accept them, I don't. This does not mean that I would explain away any evidence at all, it is just that our standards differ on what is proof and what is not. And again, I also point out in defending the reality of these positions, that I have altered my positions in two very large ways, and dozens of smaller ones, as discussions and argument from others have made counter points to my claims, and demonstrated evidence that I was wrong.
I am practically unique in this. So to make imaginative predictions that my my future self would explain away any new evidence presented, is not only illogical to do, it is also baseless. Modern Forgery is clearly and obviously falsifiable. It is a valid hypothesis, and should be considered seriously. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
LisaFaginDavis > 28-04-2024, 02:39 PM
(26-04-2024, 10:57 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for Lisa, she told me that, long ago, before C14 dating, she knew right away, that it was and is obvious to her, that this is an early 15th century document. Perhaps she meant it was difficult for others? If you are reading this, Lisa, it would be better than Mark and I trying to define your views on this. But when I personally asked you this, at the Malta conference, my understanding from your answer was that this was "clearly" an early 15th century manuscript, and that this should not be a difficult answer to come to.
I've stated my thoughts about this on many occasions, but I will do it again. The fact that the date and place of origin of the VMS cannot (yet) be precisely determined is not even remotely surprising nor is it unusual. Look at any medieval manuscript description or online record. Many will give only a century, or a range of fifty years, or just a question mark. Place of origin is usually a nation or region, rarely a city or specific community. Such attributions may change as more evidence comes to light or as more experts weigh in. This is what I do for a living. My job as a descriptive manuscript bibliographer is to examine the evidence and try to zero in more precisely on a date and place of origin. I do this every time I look at a manuscript that hasn't been carefully studied or attributed, and I have studied hundreds, if not thousands, of medieval codices and leaves over the last thirty years, following and researching the evidence to narrow the attribution from, say, France to Amiens, or from the fifteenth century to, say, the third quarter of the fifteenth century. These conclusions are based on stylistic comparisons to manuscripts that DO have a known date and place of origin, as well as evidence of authorship, artistic style, scribal work, and/or early ownership.
The most prolific medieval author is named Anonymous. Most manuscripts have so far been assigned only a very imprecise date and place of origin. It does not follow that the authenticity of manuscripts without a clear date and place of origin should be questioned. Because it is not possible to prove absolutely that something is authentic, the burden of proof rests on the science to prove a manuscript is NOT authentic. Therefore, I will always start by accepting that an object is what it purports to be unless I or someone else can prove otherwise. As I have stated on many occasions, there is absolutely nothing about the VMS that I find suspicious in terms of its authenticity as a fifteenth-century object. On the contrary, everything about the manuscript's physical and material properties supports the conclusion that this is a fifteenth-century object. If evidence surfaces that truly contradicts that presumption of authenticity, I will be very happy to revise my opinion. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
ReneZ > 28-04-2024, 03:03 PM
Hi Andrew,
well, that was a clear case, and not the first or only one here, of talking at cross-purposes. I had interpreted your comment as indicating that you had never seen Rich argue that a great variety of opinions is an indication that something could be a fraud. That is why I pointed to the video.
It is one of several points that Kurz is making.
(28-04-2024, 12:09 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would very much like to hear some reasoned arguments that explain why any of the red flags aren't actually red flags.
As far as the actual theories go, the reason I am not convinced of Rich's theory is because I haven't yet seen all
the evidence laid out and weighed in an objective way for and against each candidate theory. And so I'm not yet
convinced of any theory.
Well, what is a 'red flag'? It should be understood as an indication that something could be wrong.
It is not evidence of a fraud.
All these points can occur for genuine manuscripts as well as for fakes.
So what do they tell us?
If an object raises such red flags, then the object should be studied more closely.
Now that has been done, not by amateurs but by (real) experts in each of the respective fields. First in 2009, and again in 2014.
Nothing was found.
The manuscript passed all tests with flying colours.
I used to have a web page addressing these red flags one by one but I took it down again.
Interestingly, decades ago, the situation was quite different.
There was just the MS and the Marci letter. Nothing else. The two items existed in a complete vacuum.
This is where Kurz would really come into play.
I was seriously wondering whether the two could be a fake.
I had quite an interesting story, which I may have told here before.
This is one of the things that set me off on the historical research. After all, these events are much more recent, so it will be much easier to find information about it.
Little by little, the evidence turned up and we got a more and more complete picture.
Thanks for the reminder about the translations, by the way. I will eventually look at that, but so far I have not seen anything that changes the picture in any way.