+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Book of Holy Trinity (/thread-983.html)
RE: [!!!SPOILERS!!!] Book opinions - -JKP- - 27-10-2016
(27-10-2016, 10:23 PM)Diane wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... [deleted for brevity] ...
The point is rather that a person who first brings new information, data, argument and original research to this study deserves due recognition. To do otherwise is to create a false impression that the non-crediting writer actually discovered it themselves - which is false - or to hinder the efforts of people wanting to see what basis the original proponent had for any ideas that now circulate. Such things are, or should be, self-evident to any scholar so I apologise for stating the obvious here.
...
You have no way of knowing whether the non-crediting writer discovered something independently or not.
If we are submitting to academic journals, it's important to look up the previous research and cite it so that old ground is not constantly rehashed, but that is a separate issue from whether a researcher independently discovered something about the manuscript.
Do you want researchers to credit previous researchers they've never read (or sometimes never even heard of)? That would create an even greater false impression.
RE: [!!!SPOILERS!!!] Book opinions - Anton - 27-10-2016
RE: [!!!SPOILERS!!!] Book opinions - ReneZ - 28-10-2016
RE: [split] Book of Holy Trinity - Koen G - 28-10-2016
RE: [split] Book of Holy Trinity - MarcoP - 28-10-2016
RE: [split] Book of Holy Trinity - Koen G - 28-10-2016
RE: [split] Book of Holy Trinity - -JKP- - 28-10-2016
RE: [split] Book of Holy Trinity - EllieV - 28-10-2016
RE: [split] Book of Holy Trinity - Davidsch - 28-10-2016
RE: [split] Book of Holy Trinity - Helmut Winkler - 28-10-2016