MichelleL11 > 25-09-2020, 08:52 PM
(25-09-2020, 07:48 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(25-09-2020, 02:15 PM)MichelleL11 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree with you that the switch to fiction prose for English rather than sticking with the Bible feels like cherry picking.If "cherry picking" implies intentionally twisting data, I don't think this is the case. I believe it is just confirmation bias at work: Schinner's reading of Schenkel and Kokol's works happened through the lenses of the idea that Voynichese is gibberish. He was unable to see those parts that point in a different direction.
-JKP- > 25-09-2020, 08:59 PM
(25-09-2020, 08:52 PM)MichelleL11 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Oh, I don't think he intentionally twisted any data. It just strongly appears that he intentionally chose particular data to include (and by implication) chose particular data to not include. That's what cherry picking is. ..
farmerjohn > 25-09-2020, 09:20 PM
(25-09-2020, 07:29 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have a general comment about the "gibberish/autocopying" theory of the Voynich ms text and the debate about it:
If we compare the decryption of the Voynich ms text to the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics, then the "gibberish/autocopying" theory would be comparable to the claim that the Riemann Hypothesis is false. But the many failed attempts to prove the Riemann Hypothesis do not at all mean that the hypothesis is false, nor do they actually constitute any serious evidence that it is false. They simply show that it is very, very hard to prove. In mathematics it is understood that one needs just as rigorous evidence to prove a hypothesis is false as one needs to prove that it is true. The same standard should apply to the gibberish/autocopying theories.
geoffreycaveney > 25-09-2020, 09:36 PM
(25-09-2020, 09:20 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think that proving gibberishness is similar to proving/disproving a mathematical theorem (Riemann Hypothesis in particular), because in case of theorem we at least know what to expect. It is either proof (which is well-defined concept ) or counterexample (in case of RH it's just a number).
ReneZ > 26-09-2020, 05:58 AM
Anton > 26-09-2020, 03:17 PM
Linda > 26-09-2020, 04:13 PM
RobGea > 26-09-2020, 06:11 PM