• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Scientific Progress

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • Scientific Progress
• Scientific Progress

• RE: Scientific Progress

  Koen G > 26-07-2024, 05:18 PM

  I agree that every argument should be judged by its own merit, regardless of the originator or the company it keeps. But I still think it is better, if at all possible, to approach the Voynich without forming a theory first. Usually, when someone thinks "maybe it's written in Old English", they will indeed find evidence that it is written in Old English. In the majority of cases, such approaches to the MS are not very productive.
  
  Regarding your theory, it is not because you demonstrate that it could be done, that it was necessarily done that way. Theoretically possible (what you have shown) does not necessarily equal "likely". I believe that it is from this division between theoretical possibility and historical likelihood that our misunderstanding or miscommunication arises.
  
  For example, one could probably devise a way for valid Roman numerals to be generated. But that does not mean that a medieval accounting book full of Roman numerals was generated by this method.

• RE: Scientific Progress

  Torsten > 27-07-2024, 01:49 AM

  (26-07-2024, 05:18 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree that every argument should be judged by its own merit, regardless of the originator or the company it keeps. But I still think it is better, if at all possible, to approach the Voynich without forming a theory first. Usually, when someone thinks "maybe it's written in Old English", they will indeed find evidence that it is written in Old English. In the majority of cases, such approaches to the MS are not very productive.

  
  Please don't attack the arguer instead of the argument. Believe it or not my approach was to research the Voynich without forming a theory first. Therefore the self citation theory is based on detailed observations of the Voynich text. I did already ask you, if you think my description of the Voynich text is wrong? Here I ask you again, where do you disagree with my description of the Voynich text and why?
  
  

  (26-07-2024, 05:18 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Regarding your theory, it is not because you demonstrate that it could be done, that it was necessarily done that way. Theoretically possible (what you have shown) does not necessarily equal "likely". I believe that it is from this division between theoretical possibility and historical likelihood that our misunderstanding or miscommunication arises.
  
  For example, one could probably devise a way for valid Roman numerals to be generated. But that does not mean that a medieval accounting book full of Roman numerals was generated by this method.

  
  First, in my eyes scientific theories are not described as true or right, but as the best-supported explanation of the world based on evidence. Therefore a theory for the Voynich text should describe a large set of observations of that text, and provide a cohesive explanation for those observations.
  
  Second, it is not theoretical, as the experiment by Gaskell and Bowern demonstrates. Just do the experiment yourself by writing a few pages of gibberish or ask some volunteers to do so. Then, consider whether it's easier to copy words or invent new ones. Isn't it plausible that people always try to do things in the easiest way possible? If it comes to historical likelihood, do you think that in medieval times students did behave different and never copied their homework? 
  
  Third, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that another unknown text generation method might exist which can result in exactly the same properties as the self-citation method. Moreover, you believe that this unknown text generation method is more likely than the known self-citation method. Can you name the additional criteria an alternative text generation method must fulfill? How do you evaluate an unknown text generation method? Do you suggest that we have to wait until someone publishes the "real" text generation? And what happens if at the day such a method is published someone argues that he believes that he believes that a third text generation might exist?

• RE: Scientific Progress

  ReneZ > 27-07-2024, 11:26 AM

  (26-07-2024, 05:00 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (26-07-2024, 01:23 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The big problem here is that compatible does not mean correct (at all!).

  
  
  
  Such a blanket statement would seem to imply that investigations found to be compatible are guaranteed to be flawed and inaccurate.

  
  I wouldn't call this a blanket statement, just a simple, basic statement.
  
  "guaranteed to be false" also does not follow logically from what I said
  
  One can have compatible hypotheses, and they can both be false.
  One can have compatible hypotheses that are both correct.
  It is also entirely possible (and this is what we are deailing with most of the time) that it is (as yet) impossible to say whether they are false or correct.
  I could go on... one could be correct and the other not.
  
  

  (26-07-2024, 04:39 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How can a theory be proved or disproved, if not by checking if the theory aligns with the evidence?

  
  Comparing with evidence is better than providing compatible hypotheses, but being compaible with the evidence is still not good enough. If there are several mutually exclusive hypotheses that are all compatible with the evidence, then we still do not know.
  
  It gets worse when the 'compatibility' is subjective.
  It gets even worse when it is so subjective that it hardly convinces anyone.

• RE: Scientific Progress

  R. Sale > 27-07-2024, 07:17 PM

  We might be into apples and oranges here. Or perhaps they are melons. Also, I limit my comments to the artistic aspects of the VMs, not to the linguistic side.
  
  You say 'compatible hypotheses' where I used 'compatible investigations.' Here, I would see hypotheses more like suggestions or lines of potential inquiry. And while "investigation" may include such speculation, it may also include various, previous results which show potential validity. One such investigation was VMs cosmos and the pathway that led from Newbold's Andromeda to a far more viable comparison with the Parisian cosmic representations of BNF Fr 565 and Harley 334. The particular details of this cosmic structure are not tied to the authors of the texts, but instead to the artists.
  
  The VMs cosmos matches the distinctive cosmic structure despite the significant differences in its visual appearance. The details can be examined; the evidence exists. The evidence has its provenance.
  
  This applies to the second investigation into the fashion of medieval clothing, regarding baggy sleeves with tight cuffs. The provenance is roughly limited to the 1420s in French, Swiss, Burgundian and other areas.
  
  I make no hypothesis. These are not my investigations. Yet it is clear to see that these examples involve the same geographic area in the relevant time period (1400-1450). They are compatible, along with Melusine and other investigative results. And as such they lend "some" reinforcement to each other. Given the ambiguity in the VMs, there is no clear 'yes' or 'no'. Direction is indicated by the number and the nature of the evidence. The evidence tells us some of the things that were known to the artist, despite some intentional duality and disguise. 
  
  In contrast, other investigations, like Cathars and Aztecs, are pretty much incompatible.

• RE: Scientific Progress

  Torsten > 29-07-2024, 11:58 AM

  (27-07-2024, 11:26 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (26-07-2024, 04:39 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How can a theory be proved or disproved, if not by checking if the theory aligns with the evidence?

  
  Comparing with evidence is better than providing compatible hypotheses, but being compaible with the evidence is still not good enough. If there are several mutually exclusive hypotheses that are all compatible with the evidence, then we still do not know.

  
  I didn't see any problems with multiple hypotheses. "Scientific inquiry includes creating a hypothesis through inductive reasoning, testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results" (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
  
  The property set of the Voynich text is unique and therefore distinctive. If there were multiple candidates for text generation methods, we could experiment with these methods to assess how closely they generate text with Voynich-like properties. We could then analyze the details of the best methods to see how they handle specific properties and identify any commonalities among them. Finally, we could use these results to develop an improved text generation method. 
  
  However, your argument is that no matter how good a text generation method is, we still cannot know with absolute certainty. This suggests that it doesn't matter in your eyes how good an available hypotheses is since you would refuse any hypothesis as uncertain. The nature of truth and the discussion on how scientific statements relate to reality is for instance explained in the Wikipedia article about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: "Should science aim to determine ultimate truth, or are there questions that science cannot answer? Scientific realists claim that science aims at truth and that one ought to regard scientific theories as true, approximately true, or likely true. Conversely, scientific anti-realists argue that science does not aim (or at least does not succeed) at truth, especially truth about unobservables like" the meaning of a text. I align with the realists and argue that testing hypotheses is useful. The goal is not to determine whether a hypothesis is definitively true, but rather to establish if it is the best-supported explanation of the world based on the evidence available today. If at a later day evidence surfaces that truly contradicts that hypothesis, I will be very happy to use the new knowledge to improve the hypothesis or if this is not possible to reject the hypothesis.
  
  

  (27-07-2024, 11:26 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It gets worse when the 'compatibility' is subjective.
  It gets even worse when it is so subjective that it hardly convinces anyone.

  
  In another thread you just wrote: "Where the amateur community can really help is by analysing the text using software, statistics etc. ... I agree with the viewpoint that, what the text means (and implicitly whether it is meaningful or not), has to come from detailed, specific, concrete analyses. Here we have data that can be processed in an objective manner." (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) It is up to you if you test the compatibility by processing the detailed, specific, concrete statistics analyses which you say can be processed in an objective manner or if you rely on something else. I'm sure that some concrete tests would be more convincing than some unspecific comments about what is subjective in your eyes.

• RE: Scientific Progress

  trud55 > 29-07-2024, 01:16 PM

  (09-06-2024, 07:58 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am rather critical of "ready-made" theories on VMS. In my opinion, there is currently no comprehensive theory that takes all aspects of the VMS sufficiently into account. It is not even certain in which direction a solution could basically go (e.g. code or natural language). The summary of the studies on partial aspects in the various camps still does not allow a final judgment to be made. Basic research is still the order of the day. This is the best way to expect incremental progress.

  
  Where one can find list of "all ascpects of VMS". Are there 20, 50 items in the list besides date 1404-1438.
  
  Personally I think /for myself/ to dig deep 15 century. Do we know everything from that time?
  Future has no answers only history holds them. That's my true belief.

• RE: Scientific Progress

  R. Sale > 29-07-2024, 07:29 PM

  Hypothesis: Heraldry: Potential heraldic communication in the VMs.
  
  Evidence: The tub patterns from the initial pages of the VMs Zodiac sequence.
  
  Evidence: The definitions and rules of medieval heraldry relevant to the VMs C-14 dating.
  
  Conclusion:     <This part intentionally left blank - to see if someone has something to say.>

• RE: Scientific Progress

  bi3mw > 29-07-2024, 07:44 PM

  (29-07-2024, 01:16 PM)trud55 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (09-06-2024, 07:58 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am rather critical of "ready-made" theories on VMS. In my opinion, there is currently no comprehensive theory that takes all aspects of the VMS sufficiently into account. It is not even certain in which direction a solution could basically go (e.g. code or natural language). The summary of the studies on partial aspects in the various camps still does not allow a final judgment to be made. Basic research is still the order of the day. This is the best way to expect incremental progress.

  
  Where one can find list of "all ascpects of VMS". Are there 20, 50 items in the list besides date 1404-1438.
  
  Personally I think /for myself/ to dig deep 15 century. Do we know everything from that time?
  Future has no answers only history holds them. That's my true belief.

  
  I have expressed myself somewhat incorrectly here. Instead of "all aspects of VMS", it would be better to say "all known aspects of VMS". By that I don't just mean statistical features (which you have to laboriously search for on the internet), but also historical aspects, of course. So not only modern means should be considered, but also a "look back" is important. All disciplines of medieval studies (whether professional or amateur) are in demand here.

• RE: Scientific Progress

  ReneZ > 30-07-2024, 02:10 AM

  (29-07-2024, 07:29 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hypothesis: Heraldry: Potential heraldic communication in the VMs.
  
  Evidence: The tub patterns from the initial pages of the VMs Zodiac sequence.
  
  Evidence: The definitions and rules of medieval heraldry relevant to the VMs C-14 dating.
  
  Conclusion:     <This part intentionally left blank - to see if someone has something to say.>

  
  The following does not just apply to heraldic matches, but also to plant matches in the herbal section of the MS.
  
  Given that one can see many dozens of heraldic-like patterns in the full zodiac section of the MS, and over a hundred plants in the herbal section;
  and also given that there exist probably over a hundred historical heraldic patters, and certainly many hundreds of medieval plant drawings in existing illustrated herbals;
  
  how can one be sure that one heraldic match, or two or three plant matches, are not just an inevitable consequence of chance?
  
  This is not a rhetoric question. I do not know the answer. I do not wish to imply that we are definitly talking about just chance here.
  
  One can say much more about both topics, but I just want to leave it with this question for now.

• RE: Scientific Progress

  R. Sale > 30-07-2024, 10:32 PM

  "(H)ow can one be sure that one heraldic match, or two or three plant matches, are not just an inevitable consequence of chance?"
  
  By the nature of the evidence that provides confirmation and by the number of independent confirmations. 
  
  A good place to look for heraldic comparisons is found with some of the tub patterns of the VMs Zodiac that show similarities to various standard patterns in armorial heraldry. This is particularly clear regarding the insignia that are based on patterns of alternating stripes, but the VMs also has patterns with circles, rings, and scales, and others with engrailed lines.
  
  Heraldry that was introduced on VMs Pisces is confirmed of VMs White Aries where general references to armorial and ecclesiastical heraldry are combined on a single nymph to make a very particular historical reference to the origins of a religious tradition (the cardinal's red galero). The construction is intentional. Independent, objective determinations of structure provide evidence of confirmation, based on proper hierarchical placement and preferred heraldic positions, on the choice of Zodiac medallions, and on the prepositioning of papellony patterns. Such complexity with structural and historical correspondence in an illustration can not be attributed to chance.
• Next Oldest Next Newest