• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

[split] Voynich 2026 Conference QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • [split] Voynich 2026 Conference QUESTIONS/COMMENTS
• [split] Voynich 2026 Conference QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

• RE: Voynich 2026 Conference

  BessAgritianin > Yesterday, 01:50 AM

  The history of VM has been discussed thousand of times.
  The debate of whether it is a hoax has been going on over a century and AI as we know cannot decipher the text, as being unique and having no comparison to another known text.
  So what is the point of this conference?
  
  If we are not interested in reading the text, linquistic analysis, interpretation then we study everything ABOUT the manuscript, except what is says. Is this not the central paradox on Vonych research?

• RE: Voynich 2026 Conference

  Zauriek > Yesterday, 08:18 AM

  (Yesterday, 01:50 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If we are not interested in reading the text, linquistic analysis, interpretation then we study everything ABOUT the manuscript, except what is says. Is this not the central paradox on Vonych research?

  
  Good science is apparently very boring for the untrained eye because it has to be step by step in a systematic manner; The "text decoding" starts way after scientist know enough about the vms to start making inferences. To decipher the Egyptian text, scientist needed the Rosetta stone, before that it was a mystery [and they tried a LOT].
  
  But no worries, in sites like this, you can find lots of people who have claimed to have found the solution to the vms. There was a kind fella that said there was no point on making more research because he already solved the voynich but he was kindly giving us permission to keep this forum open, there was a youtube video that claimed the vms was Turkish and it was all solved, etc.. there are plenty of claimed solutions to dive in.
  
  Personally i'm not interested on reading the text due "exhaustion;" i give it a good try back in the old days for some years, after failing over and over i gave up. Got rid of everything i had on the voynich (it was a failure anyways), now i just have vague memories of my failed amateurish research; But you know what? i'm at peace with it because i tried all i could imagine. Even in this case i'm still interested on knowing how the mystery itself is unfolding with the pass of time [specially when you see people smarter than you give it a good try.] There is a lot of good detective thinking here and there, it is fun.

• RE: Voynich 2026 Conference

  Bernd > Yesterday, 10:19 AM

  This is the difference between science and pseudoscience.
  Personally I don't care what the VM text says, or if it says anything at all. I'm interested in how and why the author(s) created it, and in what historical context. If you are approaching a problem with the mindset to 'prove' your theory, you are already a bad scientist.

• RE: Voynich 2026 Conference

  BessAgritianin > Today, 03:22 AM

  "Science" is not about giving up, because something is difficult. It is about testing hypotheses even uncomfortable ones.
  "Pseudoscience" is about defining science in a way, that excludes anyone that challenges the established view.
  If you are not interested in reading the text, you are not interested in solving the mystery. This is not science, but entertainment.

• RE: Voynich 2026 Conference

  Zauriek > Today, 04:36 AM

  It is entertaining. And Fun.
  I think the conference is going to be very cool, it is impressive how much work there is to do with the mvs outside the text itself and its meaning.

• RE: Voynich 2026 Conference

  rikforto > 7 hours ago

  (Today, 03:22 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you are not interested in reading the text, you are not interested in solving the mystery. This is not science, but entertainment.

  Who here do you take to be disinterested in reading the text? There are certainly people who think it will not be possible for various reasons, and the committee has decided to take on intermediate problems related to the text rather than solution proposals, but that is not the same as being disinterested in reading the text.

• RE: Voynich 2026 Conference

  Jorge_Stolfi > 7 hours ago

  (Yesterday, 10:19 AM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you are approaching a problem with the mindset to 'prove' your theory, you are already a bad scientist.

  
  That is a naive view of how science is done.  In reality, science usually advances only when a scientist notices some peculiar pattern in some data, invents a theory to explain it, becomes convinced that it is likely to be true, and works hard to find evidence that can convince others of it.  That is, conviction usually comes before the proof, not after it.
  
  And that must be so, because a scientist almost never stumbles on the categorical evidence right at the start.  Without conviction that the theory is very likely true, one would not put any effort into looking for such evidence.  One would probably mutter just "that is curious" and then swipe at the phone to check the lunch's menu.  
  
  Before one gets evidence that will convince others, one must often endure the critics who say that the theory "seems too unlikely" or "to far-fetched", dare to disagree publicly with the "consensus of the experts" (which is never good for one's career), devise exculpatory explanations for all the evidence that seems to refute the claim  (or just put aside that evidence, to be tackled later), etc.   If the theory turns out to be wrong, that work and attrition would have been wasted -- but that risk is an unavoidable feature of the job. 
  
  It has been claimed that one should not assume any theory while doing research, in order to avoid unconscious bias.  That would be nice, but it is not a viable option.  There are always infinitely many statistics one could do or experiments one could run, but the vast majority will not produce any useful information.  One must have a theory in order to choose the experiment or statistics.
  
  As Popper described, the "scientific method" in a nutshell is: first formulate a theory, then perform the simplest experiment you can that would most effectively decide between that theory and its alternatives.  That is not just a good observation, but also good advice.
  
  In fact, that ideal "agnostic research" is outright impossible.   When one chooses to do a particular statistic or simulation on the VMS, one is automatically and implicitly making certain assumptions about its nature, and therefore about its origin.  When one runs statistics on a transcription file like Rene's, one is assuming that the all 100'000 glyph occurrences are instances of a small set of glyph types, and only the type of each glyph (as guessed by the transcriber) is meaningful, while the detailed shape is irrelevant -- as well as the tilt and curvature of the baselines, the shade of the ink, etc..  When one tries to match the plant illustrations to actual plants, one is assuming that the drawings are at least partly realistic (and maybe also assuming that the colors are original).   When you choose to tabulate word pairs across line breaks, you are implicitly assuming that the draft was written (not just copied to vellum) from left to right, and that the Scribe respected the line breaks of the Author.  And so on.
  
  Scientific research stops being science and turns into pseudoscience only when one keeps believing that one's theory is likely in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is wrong.  Or, worse, when one realizes that the theory is wrong, but still pretends to believe in it because that sells books or gets more views on YouTube.  Then it is no longer just pseudoscience but outright fraud.
  
  No matter how simple the solution to the VM will turn out to be, chances are that proving that the solution is correct will require a lot of work, after the initial announcement -- and that work will get done only by someone who is convinced to be on the right track, before he gets the proof.  
  
  The point is: don't be quick to scoff "pseudoscience" at a proposed solution just because the guy is trying to prove a theory that still has no convincing proof, or even has some evidence against it.  That is probably what the correct solution will look like at first...
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: Voynich 2026 Conference

  DG97EEB > 7 hours ago

  (7 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (Yesterday, 10:19 AM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you are approaching a problem with the mindset to 'prove' your theory, you are already a bad scientist.

  
  That is a naive view of how science is done.  In reality, science usually advances only when a scientist notices some 
  All the best, --stolfi

  
  I agree, and actually we see more and more that people from outside a particular field are solving problems because they bring a fresh perspective..
  
  (Btw, my great uncle studied under Popper - what a truly incredible experience that must have been)

• RE: Voynich 2026 Conference

  Aga Tentakulus > 5 hours ago

  This is where the question arises for me.
  Where is the leap from an idea to a theory?
  
  It’s becoming increasingly common for people to simply throw out ideas here, and for us to be expected to turn them into a theory.
  That’s exactly what gets on my nerves.

• RE: Voynich 2026 Conference

  eggyk > 2 hours ago

  (7 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That is a naive view of how science is done.  In reality, science usually advances only when a scientist notices some peculiar pattern in some data, invents a theory to explain it, becomes convinced that it is likely to be true, and works hard to find evidence that can convince others of it.  That is, conviction usually comes before the proof, not after it.

  
  There is a big difference between trying to prove a theory is correct because you are convinced it is true, and trying to prove whether a theory is correct because you suspect it might be true.
  
  The former assumes the end result before sufficient evidence and is highly susceptible to confirmation bias. The latter sets out to confirm or debunk their theory, open to a positive or negative result.
• Next Oldest Next Newest