NEWCOMERS – To avoid misunderstanding the purpose of this blog, please start with the ‘About’ page.
So that posts can be skimmed more rapidly, additional comment and detail is collapsed beside a small black arrow. Clicking on the arrow will expand it. To search within a post, first open all arrows.
To read a series of posts in order , see sidebar for the most recent and ‘Cumulative Bibliography’ page for the rest. All posts listed are linked.
_______________________
Newer news at
Voynich Annotated News
Parallels suggested for a few details (March 21st., 2020)
___________________________
He’s not trying to undermine your theory; he’s trying to making sense of the dam’ thing.
It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong . That’s all there is to it.”
_________________
“In bad research, there are several options:
1) Denial The evidence … ignored. It can be swept under the carpet.
2) Discrediting the source of the information.”
Rene Zandbergen, comment to Nick Pelling’s blog on May 19, 2018 at 6:50 am.
To which I’d add another:
(3) mis-attributing good information to avoid admitting that (1) and (2) were dishonestly done.
re-using material from these posts . You can quote anything you like: just so long as you do quote it with mention of me, and the title of the page or post. Easy.
____
WELCOME – factual corrections. “Don’t snigger in the corner, boy, speak up!” – Victorian headmaster.
The fact is that within the study as a whole, the origin of the content remains largely unknown; the nature of the content remains unknown; the question of ‘authorship’ for the content is scarcely addressed by formal investigation; and whether or not it is in cipher is still unproven.
“The most nefarious problem is that [a certain Voynich theory] is pseudo-rigorous – that is it, it works hard to give the appearance of being rigorous scholarship while in fact it is not at all. … citations are used only for circumstantial evidence. As soon as we look at the concrete examples and the readings they … rest on pure speculation – often uninformed speculation.”
Magnus Pharao Hansen critiquing Janick and Tucker’s Nahuatl theory. Worth reading in full, because in my opinion Hansen’s statements hold true for all theory-driven Voynich narratives to date – not excluding those based on faith in Singer’s “feelings”, and which presently dominate all public discussion. (On Singer see d’Imperio pp. 7-8 and Santacoloma’s post ). citations are not endorsements.
______________
Clicking a ‘tag’ will bring up any posts containing that term. In a post, then open any sections of collapsed text (marked by a black arrow-head), and use your ‘Find’ function (Control+F).
