- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] On the validation of Theories
- [split] On the validation of Theories
-
[split] On the validation of Theories
davidjackson > 02-07-2019, 10:07 AM
The problem, if I may interject into this little discussion, is that whilst there are several interesting probable theories out there, there aren't any ways of proving these theories.
Torsten's theory is fascinating, but unprovable. So is Rugg's, realistically. There are a half dozen more out there. Same for the "it's real" theory, probable but no more provable than Torsten's. Or even SantaColumna's hoax theory.
I'm afraid that picking a camp amongst any of these theories is like Brexit. Ultimately, nobody knows and two "experts" can both hold diametrically opposing views - and both can be right (for a given value of "right"). You just choose the one that "feels right" to you and then you become emotionally involved.
So really, the only option is to be theory agnostic and evaluate all of them with an open mind. Personally, I'm putting all the theories that pass critical evaluation to one side in the hope that something pops up in the future that lends weight to one or the other.
So let's not get too emotionally involved in any theory. At the end of the day, it's all supposed to be a fun intellectual game. Or, in the words of the immortal Dilbert:
![[Image: 2005-02-17voting.gif]](https://shadowdemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/2005-02-17voting.gif)
-
RE: Unconventional Methods in Voynich Manuscript Analysis
Torsten > 02-07-2019, 11:07 AM
(02-07-2019, 10:07 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The problem, if I may interject into this little discussion, is that whilst there are several interesting probable theories out there, there aren't any ways of proving these theories.
Sorry, but I have no clue about which problem you are talking about. The discussion was about ignoring well known key-observations for the VMS-text. It is for instance a well known fact that the text is not homogenous. See Renés page about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., his post from 2002 about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., or the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. In my eyes this is a key-observation for the VMS and René is right to criticize if this observation gets ignored. As far as I understand we both agree that it is necessary to analyze such key-features in order to understand how the VMS-script and the VMS-text works.
(02-07-2019, 10:07 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Torsten's theory is fascinating, but unprovable.
There is already a thread about my paper (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). As far as I understand the discussion in this thread is about disproving the evidence in favor of the self-citation method. -
RE: Unconventional Methods in Voynich Manuscript Analysis
davidjackson > 02-07-2019, 11:20 AM
Quote:
Quote:All the stuff about the tropes of bungling experts vs. bright newcomers, or the delving into people's (overt or hidden) motivation is only distracting, and while it can be annoying, it is best ignored as much as possible.
The point is about "ignoring facts that don't suit you".
The one you are discussing in posts #12 onwards -
RE: Unconventional Methods in Voynich Manuscript Analysis
Torsten > 02-07-2019, 11:55 AM
(02-07-2019, 11:20 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:
Quote:All the stuff about the tropes of bungling experts vs. bright newcomers, or the delving into people's (overt or hidden) motivation is only distracting, and while it can be annoying, it is best ignored as much as possible.
The point is about "ignoring facts that don't suit you".
The one you are discussing in posts #12 onwards
You say it yourself, the discussion was about "ignoring facts that don't suit you". -
RE: Unconventional Methods in Voynich Manuscript Analysis
nickpelling > 08-08-2019, 09:56 PM
(02-07-2019, 10:07 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The problem, if I may interject into this little discussion, is that whilst there are several interesting probable theories out there, there aren't any ways of proving these theories. (...)
I'm afraid that picking a camp amongst any of these theories is like Brexit. Ultimately, nobody knows and two "experts" can both hold diametrically opposing views - and both can be right (for a given value of "right"). You just choose the one that "feels right" to you and then you become emotionally involved.
This is an unhelpful point of view, because it fails to mention that most theories can be proven to be false. The ones that have survived tend to be either unspecific or constantly modified by their author/champion whenever challenged. -
RE: Unconventional Methods in Voynich Manuscript Analysis
davidjackson > 09-08-2019, 05:59 PM
Doesn't mean it isn't true, however.
You say aliens don't exist; I say they do. That's the end of the argument, unless I can show you an alien.
Without facts, these theories fall out of any epistemological framework and into the realms of belief. -
RE: Unconventional Methods in Voynich Manuscript Analysis
ReneZ > 10-08-2019, 08:33 AM
"Proving" is one of these difficult concepts.
I think that it is next to impossible to disprove any of the existing Voynich theories.
The best one can hope to do is to:
- show they are extremely unlikely
- show that they are not based on any evidence
- show that the logic is faulty
(and maybe a few more)
In US court (and possibly elsewhere) there is this phrase "beyond reasonable doubt".
This moves the difficultly from the word "proof" to the word "reasonable".
Still, it is deemed good enough to send people to prison for life.
The question how many people believe a theory or not is also not a good criterium.
It would be more valuable to get the opinion from "informed" people, i.e. people who are familiar with the history of science, the history of book making etc etc.
Just an example: if one were to go out and ask people whether travel faster than light is possible, I am sure one would get a lot of positive answers. -
RE: Unconventional Methods in Voynich Manuscript Analysis
Torsten > 12-08-2019, 04:49 PM
Usually a theory gets validated. For instance it is necessary that a theory is consistent in itself and with the known facts. A theory must also be falsifiable. With other words there must be statements that can disprove the theory. See the following link for more validation criteria: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It might be interesting that this year a course at the university of cologne was given. In this course several Voynich theories were validated (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.):
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Gibbs, Bax, Montemurro, Cheshire)
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Hauer/Kondrack, Hermes)
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Rugg, Timm)
Note: I would suggest to split this thread and to start a new thread about the validation of theories. -
RE: [split] On the validation of Theories
ReneZ > 12-08-2019, 06:21 PM
Great links!
Good work from Jürgen Hermes, one of the authorities in Germany about the Voynich MS.
Edit: by Jürgen Hermes and what appear to be his students. -
RE: [split] On the validation of Theories
Helmut Winkler > 12-08-2019, 06:26 PM
The real problem is that most theories or I would rather say approaches are ahistorical, I want to say researchers are approaching B. 408 like a modern object, let us say like the Purple Code and not as a 15th c. object