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 in the earlier posts 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 posts in order , see ‘Table of Contents – Cumulative Bibliography’ page, with most recent posts in the sidebar. Links will take you to the original. posts.
_________________
Because these posts were intended only to outline a topic for which readings are listed, the best way to search for a subject is to go to the ‘Table of Contents & Cumulative Bibliography’ page (see above) and find the post(s) for that topic, with their link.
Remember if doing a ‘search’ directly on a post, or a page, you must first click open any black arrows to make all of it visible.
________
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.
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 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).
Voynich Revisionist 