Here’s the challenge: explaining what the Voynich Manuscript is usually involves explaining what it isn’t. However, this is so boring that anyone listening would rather disembowel themselves and eat their own entrails. But perhaps Internet memes will be able to achieve the impossible…
Proving what the Voynich Manuscript isn’t only leads to disappointment. We’ve proven, for example, that the manuscript isn’t to be dated after 1500 (and unlikely after 1450). Yet there are people who insist on pushing grand theories about Dee/hoaxes/Aztecs/Dutch inventors years later. Worse, there are others who actually listen to, and give space to, such cranks.
Why rattle somebody’s cage trying to disprove their pet theory when they won’t listen even to scientific proof?
Emma,
So true – but what we call scientific proof is no more trustworthy than the premises defining the limits of data-collection and the level of precision with which the data is processed, and whether or not standard methods are observed. Even in something as straightforward and (in theory) predictable as inorganic chemistry, it’s possible to get false results. I’m not talking about the radiocarbon dating of the four samples, but the non-scientific selection of samples.. which was not the fault of the University of Arizona, but points yet again to the way that to permit commercial interests to direct the work of any particular area of research does, regularly, create flawed results and products.
Manuscript sciences normally begin with the basics of codicology, palaeography, iconographic analysis and so on – the very subjects which certain Voynicheros have in the past, or are now, insisting should be ‘ignored’ or who pretend that there is no qualitative difference in opinion between any-old-bod and a qualified person with decades of experience.
Nick’s pleas for reason, and for the study of the fundamentals fell on determinedly deaf ears between 2006-c.2015 and one person actually instructed me in an authoritative and objective-sounding way to ‘just ignore’ that sort of thing because it was ‘unnecessarily complicated’, ‘likely to create confusion’… and produced by someone who lacked ‘scientific’ proofs of some sort.
Worship of ‘Science’ is something we have (most of us) got past. We remember that there was a time when Phrenology was considered a ‘modern science’ and persons with ears of a certain shape were said to be doomed to a life of crime. We’re past that sort of thing, but it is important to realise that scientific method depends on the range and validity of collected data, and on employing a formal method that is not invented to serve a theory.
And so if anyone claims they have ‘scientific proof’ but refuses to produce their foundational information truthfully, and also refuses to engage with contrary evidence save by puffing and acting hurt, and encouraging ad.hominem attacks on the questioner, then you know that their ideas are closer to religion than science: debate does not – for them – mark the intercourse of intellectuals, but marks the heretic who is potentially a danger to society.
What we need is less Woof-woof…and a more solid warp-and weft .
Pictures of Llily perhaps! or more’s to the point, Lily’s pooch foxy!. Who’s Lily, one might ask; answer could just be Peter Townshend’s Who, that’s who. After all how many other Lilys do we know? and who’s cruel idea was it to to give the poor dog a bad name anyway?..What an ‘arf’ wank.
@Emma
You’re position is incontrovertible, your argument unassailable.
As one of the Aztec/Meso-American interpretationists, that does make me feel someone guilty. However, there is saving grace which renders all compatible.
I’m crazy.
Do continue your Vulcan like admonitions ! It lends an air of respectability to the entire topic.
Thanks !
Emma May Smith:
James R. Pannozzi:
Diane O’Donovan:
Nick – quite wrong but still funny. 🙂 Just for the record, the point is that a text whose last recension includes matter proper to the thirteenth and early fourteenth century does still include evidence of customs proper to the Hellenistic period. But why get serious – the theory that we stay involved in Voynich studies because the manuscript is just plain cute is an oddly compelling one. 🙂
Diane O’Donovan:
Nick: It’s all Greek to me too, but at least I know that Kebab as in doner is Turkic (sic) whereas gyros is the Greek equivalent, though lamb based as opposed to crap. Of course the accompanyments are also somewhat at odds; ie. zatziki and hoummus if you please, although you ball tampering Limys’ probably wouldn’t know the difference.
@Nick
Doggone it !!
░░░░░░▄▄██████▄▄░░░░░
░░░▄█████████████▄░░░
░░▄████████████████░░
░▄██████████████████░
░███████████████████░
░██▀▀▀██████████▀▀██░
░██░░░░▀█████▀░░░░██░
░░█▄░░░░▀███▀░░░░▄█░░
░░░█▄░░░░███░░░░▄█▀░░
░░░░█████████████░░░░
░░░░░▀█████████▀░░░░░
░░░▄▄▄░███████▀▄▄▄░░░
▄█░████▄▀███▀▄████░██
██░███████▄▄██████░██
██░███████████████░██
███▀██████████████░██
-.. — –. –. — / .-.. — — -.- … / – .- … – -.– .-.-.-
john sanders: errrm… I’m not sure you’ve been paying sufficient attention to the recent ball tampering story. 🙁
Emma,
Who brought, or how do _you_ think the Vms arrived at Rudolph’s court if it wasn’t Dee?
Matt Lewis