• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • 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?"

  proto57 > 16-04-2024, 03:00 PM

  Hi, Lisa:
  
  

  (16-04-2024, 12:40 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Experts have been debating the age of manuscripts like The Book of Kells and the Beowulf Manuscript for decades, if not centuries, with estimates spanning hundreds of years. Dating manuscripts is subjective, in part because the science can't give us precision. C-14 dating is helpful, but not precise. Paleographic and art historical evidence are subjective, not scientific. Experts can, and do, disagree. That doesn't mean that the Book of Kells and the Beowulf Manuscript are forgeries. No one would make that argument.

  
  Nor would I, make that argument. And I never did. You are generalizing the type of confusion over identification, which, in the cases you cite is very different than the case of the Voynich, in scope, quantity of elements of disparity, range of dating. No item, not the ones you list, nor any, have such an absolute problem with provenance, materials, content, age, geographic origin, construction, meaning, subject matter, and more. The real examples which elicit confusion do not come close... so the comparison is apples and oranges, it does not apply, and so does not forgive the Voynich for its unique case of confusion.
  
  

  (16-04-2024, 12:40 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Scientific analysis cannot prove that something is authentic; it can only prove that something is inauthentic, and none of the scientific evidence has given any hint that the VMS is not an authentic fifteenth-century object. No one who has spent any time with the actual manuscript has found anything suspicious about it...not Rene, not myself, not the curators, not the conservators, etc. etc. There are simply too many things that a forger would have to get exactly right: parchment, ink, pigment, provenance, documentation, sewing threads, evidence of previous bindings, centuries of use and staining, foliation in a later style, annotations by various hands, the erased inscription on 1r, multiple scribes, linguistic patterns, etc. etc. It is unimaginable that anyone could manage that. I have seen and studied many forgeries of medieval manuscripts over the last thirty years, and there is always something clearly suspicious. There were always suspicions about the Vinland Map. There was always a sense that something wasn't right about it, even during the period when it was thought to be geniune. There were always suspicions about The Gospel of Jesus' Wife. There is nothing about the VMS as an actual object that would make anyone with experience in working with medieval manuscripts doubt its authenticity.

  
  Well the only way that someone can claim, as you do, that there is not a "hint" of suspicion with the Voynich, is to ignore or inadequately dismiss the evidence that elicits suspicion. On almost every point you made in that paragraph, this has been done. All the things you mention have multiple suspicious elements, and ignoring them does not, should not, make them go away. They should be addressed.
  
  This is clear when one critically reads the 2016 Yale Voynich publication. In it (I think you contributed to it, no?), when critically read, we find mentioned "unusual" and anachronistic findings in the construction, the stitching, binding, materials. In the McCrone report, too, we find a "binder not in" their "library", "unusual" copper and zinc, a "titanium compound", that the ink of the last page marginalia turns out to be the same ink as the main text. And, as in my reply to Rene, the 50-60 year range (more if the error margins are considered) of C14 data... which is an odd thing in a supposedly cohesive manuscript... is simply adjusted down to fit an "assumed" verdict.
  
  These things are just a drop in the bucket of anachronistic and anomalous features in the Voynich, all of which cannot be, should not be, so easily dismissed by you. In fact, I did watch, with interest, your terrific presentation at Welsley. But I should point out that even you reported, honestly and expertly, as is your practice, many anomalous features of the Voynich, and state as fact many things which are either opinion, incorrect, or still under debate. For instance, you say that the radiocarbon dating placed it “pretty solidly” between 1404 and 1438.
  
  - You called the the Rosettes foldout pages, “Completely inexplicable”, maybe referring to the important point that foldouts of this type are “very unusual” for the time of the RC dating.
  - You described the the quires, folio numbers, stitching, and such, and over and over, saying how “odd” these things are: The order, the reorder, and so on, such as, “You're not supposed to go back and forth by nested bifolia… that’s just STRANGE” It’s WRONG. It’s not how it’s supposed to work”.
  - On your chart, you put “Modern Forgery” on the side for “Meaningless”. But it is a common misconception that forgery=meaningless: most forgeries actually have meaning.
  - You answered an ink question, "The ink is iron-gall ink, what you would expect, there is nothing special about it.", not considering nor mentioning the anomalies McCrone actually found in the ink. When asked if you know of any other book like this, you accurately describe the varied content, then say, "But no I don’t know of any other manuscript that has this particular combination”.
  - When asked, “How unusual is it to have no punctuation?”, you rightly answer, “It’s extremely unusual. We would expect to see punctuation. To see capital letters- in a Western language, certainly... ...and so it’s not clear whether the lack of punctuation is… if it’s encoded, part of the coding process. The same for the quote-unquote “capital letters”: Is that part of the encoding? Is that part of the way that the language has been recorded? Maybe. I don’t know. But you would absolutely expect, in this period, to have punctuation and capital letters. It is a very unusual feature”.
  - You pointed out that the quire numbers are probably 15th century, but that the, “… the foliation [page numbers] is probably 17th century”. This is a very common effect with the Voynich, that whenever anything is "too new" for early 15th century, it is said to have been added. When it cannot have been added, it is either ignored, or dismissed as an improper comparison.
  - and many more examples like the above
  
  The reason this is important to me is this: You are an expert, and I and everyone highly respects your experience and abilities. But like all honest feedback, we see problem after problem being noted, and usually acknowledged AS problems... but then dismissed and forgotten or ignored, and in later discussions like this one, where the unfounded claim is made that there is not a "hint" of anything suspicious. No, the "suspicious" has to be removed to make that claim... it is there, it is everywhere, in the words of every expert, every amateur, every report, even your own.
  
  Don't get me wrong here, I must point out that I know this effect is an innocent one. But a common one, which unfortunately keeps the projected image of the Voynich very inaccurate and sterile.
  
  

  (16-04-2024, 12:40 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You cannot make a determination about the authenticity of an ancient object by studying digital images. These are three-dimensional, multi-valent objects that must be examined in person and in detail in order to issue an expert opinion.

  
  Well you've added yet another parameter by which any testimony may be dismissed, by eliminating any by anyone who has not seen the Voynich in person. I strongly object to this. You don't need to see a Voynich character, plant, person, animal, zodiac, and so on, to know it intimately, and certainly enough to make valid judgements about it.
  
  But more importantly, as I've amply pointed out, even those who have studied the manuscript in person, such as you, and many other experts in all fields, have reported back many anachronisms, anomalies, and inconsistencies of all kinds, which are never properly addressed, if addressed at all.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  asteckley > 16-04-2024, 03:04 PM

  (16-04-2024, 08:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (16-04-2024, 03:40 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are several morals to this story:  
  1) Education does not make an expert -- Experience does. 

  
  What kind of experience are we talking about when it comes to expertise on the Voynich?

  
  The same kind as with any subject -- time spent studying the subject, discussing different aspects of it, evaluating ideas about the questions and uncertainties, contributing to the body of analyses and research, etc. There are plenty of people who have such experience with Voynich -- many of them are active on this forum as well. No one is saying that that alone makes on expert of course. (The statement you quoted, taken out of context, might be misconstrued as such.)

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  proto57 > 16-04-2024, 03:12 PM

  (16-04-2024, 02:30 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich, there's nothing at all suspicious about the C14 results. The imprecision of C14 dating is exactly why it doesn't represent absolute and sole proof and never claimed to. This is the case for every single C14 test ever conducted. The imprecision is expected. It's a feature, not a bug. C14 and all scientific tests, if they DON'T prove inauthenticity, are only one part of the evidence. 
  
  If the parchment had been dated to the modern era, that would've settled the matter. But it wasn't. So the scientific evidence, while helpful, is not conclusive. That's why it has be combined with expert opinion, which is subjective. 
  
  We cannot, currently, prove absolutely that the manuscript is authentic. I am happy to concede that there is a possibility that Rich is correct and that the manuscript is a modern creation. It's possible that every single manuscript is a fake. Anything is literally possible. But where the VMS is concerned, the two options - medieval vs. modern - are not equally possible. The possibility that someone, whether Voynich or someone else, could convincingly craft all of the features I listed above is so remote as to be negligible.

  
  Well I agree with you, and appreciate your pointing out that neither genuine nor forgery can presently be proven. However, in description after description I find it wrongly stated that forgery HAS been dis-proven, when it has not. It is even in the introduction to one major Voynich reprint. It is in almost every talk and documentary, where it is stated as certainties that the "signature" is real, that we "know" it was the Voynich being discussed in the Carteggio, that we "know" the 1903 reference to a manuscript, and now the "Wildmann" (sp?) reference are certainly the Voynich, and much, much more.
  
  So yes, I appreciate your acknowledging the current state of uncertainty, and I also, always make that point... that I don't know, that I've proven nothing. But it would be great if this was more generally the case, so that new researchers are not "led down the primrose path" of false certainty as genuineness.
  
  Rich

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  asteckley > 16-04-2024, 04:54 PM

  The statement "There are no Voynich experts" (or the very similar wording that has been suggested in these posts) is a very useful soundbite in so far as it conveys the idea that there are a lot of people who have spent a lot of time studying the Voynich questions and yet the basic questions all remain unanswered with many different, contradictory ideas and theories, and a lot of ongoing debate.
  But that is where the usefulness --and accuracy-- of that statement ends.
  
  Of course there are indeed several Voynich experts!
  
  When people, especially those from outside the active community such as documentary producers, want to go straight to the most important information and find out about most prevalent ideas, they have no problem finding the experts.  Rene Zanbergen, Lisa Fagin-Davis, and Richard SantaColomo have all been consulted as experts on the manuscript.
  
  Referring to someone as an expert is useful because it implies that they are particularly knowledgeable of the relevant information and probably more aware of facts that may be important to a particular question at hand. And so, all things being equal, they are likely to have more "informed" opinions than the average practitioner. It doesn't mean they are necessarily correct in their opinions and ideas, or that you have to agree with them at all. They don't even agree among themselves for that matter. (The flip side is that their immersion in the topic can also cause them to develop biases, giving them blinders against new ideas and information.
  Anecdotes of experts missing the obvious facts in retrospect are plentiful. And Kuhn's thesis on that matter is well known.)
  
   While who is or isn't an expert is entirely subjective, I can think of several very reasonable criteria:
      * substantial experience dealing directly with the topic
      * knowledgeable on the broad set of facts about the topic and on the history of activity on it
      * a depth and breadth of applied research on the topic
      * active participation in discussions with the community of researchers around the topic
      * a considered opinion on specific aspects of the topic
      * a continual accumulation of information about the topic.
  
  By these standards, there are plenty of Voynich experts.
  
  And one would have to admit that all of the ones I mentioned above can be considered experts, along with several more that are active on this forum. (Rene is too modest to call himself an expert, but let's face it:
  If you want to know something about a particular research aspect of the VMS, and don't know where to even start, ask Rene.
  His expertise may not be the deepest on every sub-topic -- although deep on some -- but it is probably the broadest of anyone's.
  If you want to know something about the Voynichese handwriting in particular, or some other paleographic aspect and how it relates to other old manuscripts, ask Lisa. (These two are only the most obvious examples - there are at least 5 or 6 more one could cite.)

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  Mark Knowles > 16-04-2024, 05:41 PM

  (16-04-2024, 04:54 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rene Zanbergen, Lisa Fagin-Davis, and Richard SantaColomo have all been consulted as experts on the manuscript.

  
  All sorts of people have been consulted on the manuscript, but I think it very doubtful that many of them could be called experts, so that seems to me to be a poor criteria for being called an expert. (I base this on having seen a few Voynich documentaries and other things.)
  
  To me an expert is someone whose opinion I can put my trust in. I think it is perfectly possible for someone to be trustworthy on a specific topic related to the Voynich, but in terms of a general understanding of the Voynich manuscript there is nobody I feel that I can put my trust in as there are so many basic questions that I cannot be confident that they have the correct answer to.
  
  There are certainly people who are knowledgeable regarding the history of Voynich research up until now, but I hesitate to call them experts on the Voynich manuscript itself.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  asteckley > 16-04-2024, 05:55 PM

  (16-04-2024, 05:41 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me an expert is someone whose opinion I can put my trust in.

  
  Well, if that constitutes your list of criteria for who is an expert, it is certainly an iron-clad one, impervious to critique.
  Good luck with it.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  proto57 > 16-04-2024, 06:11 PM

  (16-04-2024, 04:54 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. While who is or isn't an expert is entirely subjective, I can think of several very reasonable criteria:
  
      * substantial experience dealing directly with the topic
  
      * knowledgeable on the broad set of facts about the topic and on the history of activity on it
  
      * a depth and breadth of applied research on the topic
  
      * active participation in discussions with the community of researchers around the topic
  
      * a considered opinion on specific aspects of the topic
  
      * a continual accumulation of information about the topic.
  
  
  
  By these standards, there are plenty of Voynich experts.

  
  Well asteckley, thanks for the mention, and I do like your above list. I would also think it is a very good overview of what I would consider an expert on any topic, including this one.
  
  Rich

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  R. Sale > 16-04-2024, 07:38 PM

  So, let's all become experts on variants of geocentric cosmic diagrams and medieval heraldry and mythology. But then, does one really need to relentlessly explore every specific detail? Or is it sufficient to discover explanatory information for the relevant situations?

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  Torsten > 17-04-2024, 01:13 AM

  I have no doubt that the Voynich manuscript is genuine. There is for instance the observation that the parchment of folio 112 is deformed and contains several wrinkles. Due to these deformations, the scribe even left out some free space at the top of folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. To me, these observations indicate that as the scribe wrote the text, the parchment was still fresh and curled. Consequently, the scribe omitted the most curled area, resulting in the free space we observe today. Only after the scribe wrote the text the parchment was pressed flat over a longer period of time. The pressing resulted in the wrinkles that we observe today. These wrinkles even obscure parts of glyphs, such as the top of EVA-k in "okchedy" in f112v.P.10. Because of observations like that I have no doubt that the Voynich text was written in medieval times.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  ReneZ > 17-04-2024, 01:37 AM

  (16-04-2024, 02:08 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My use of assumption is not at all wrong, I am actually quoting you on this. "Assumption" and "combined are your own words, as is the entire explanation I relate. From your page, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , you wrote,
  
  "The uncertainty in age for each folio is some 50-60 years, and in the case of fol.68 even spans two centuries due to the above-mentioned inversions of the calibration curve. These folios have been bound together into one volume centuries ago, and the book production process is likely to have taken considerably less time than these 50-60 years. Under this assumption, and in particular the obtained result that the dating of the folios is tightly clustered (as shown above), each sheet provides a measurement or observation of the MS creation."

  
  Rich, you are just playing with words, and your text was not a quote of mine.
  
  This time range of the C-14 samples has nothing to do with the question whether the MS is genuinly old or not.
  Just to avoid that other readers get confused by this...
  
  The assumption is that the MS was created well within someone's life span, which is completely reasonable, as it is the case for essentially all books that aren't obviously log books. This was COMBINED with the result of the four samples which confirmed that.
  
  This assumption was not even made beforehand. It was only made after the result showed that this is clearly what happened.
  
  Now the combining of the four samples can be described in words, not using formulas.
  
  For one folio, the probability that the date is after 1450 may be 1%.
  If we just had that one folio, then that would be our uncertainty.
  
  However, we have three more folios, each with a similarly low percentage that the date is after 1450.
  This means that we have even greater confidence that the book as a whole is from before 1450.
  
  Given that the 95% range is still about 30 years, which is on a scale of a single person's adult life span, the creation of the MS well within several decades holds.
  
  With respect to the question whether the MS is proven to be genuine, I would add "beyond reasonable doubt". While the forensic evidence is clearly the strongest, there is a lot more than that.
• Next Oldest Next Newest