Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:00 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You're not going back to that beloved of Fortean times pseudoscientist nutcases again, with his competing Manuscript book/theory?
You're not going to increase Cheshire's credibility, or your own, by attacking Pelling.

Quote:
The reason why I am not buying any of you other cites is because you haven't conceded this Pelling guy is a total woo-woo nutcase.
Why should anyone value your opinion until you concede that Cheshire's ideas are total bullshit as well?
  #152  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
You're not going to increase Cheshire's credibility, or your own, by attacking Pelling.



Why should anyone value your opinion until you concede that Cheshire's ideas are total bullshit as well?
Because they haven't been debunked yet by anyone but Pelling. And Pelling is a nutcase.

Of course Cheshire could be wrong, but I am not enough of a expert to say one way or the other.
  #153  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:38 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Because they haven't been debunked yet by anyone but Pelling.
I just debunked them. And apparently you haven't been following the commentary by other experts such as Fagin Davis.

Quote:
Of course Cheshire could be wrong, but I am not enough of a expert to say one way or the other.
As I said, you don't have to be an expert in a field to detect bullshit argumentation. And if you've read all the commentary here so far, and other commentary on line besides Pelling's, you have more than enough information to say he is wrong. And if you still can't tell, that's your problem, not a problem with your expertise.

Last edited by Colibri; 05-18-2019 at 06:40 PM.
  #154  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
I just debunked them. And apparently you haven't been following the commentary by other experts such as Fagin Davis.

.....
Where was Fagan Davis cited here?

And sure, if you say so.
  #155  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:14 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,608
Maybe we have been too hard on ol' Gerard--the mob might have his girlfriend!
  #156  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:01 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Where was Fagan Davis cited here?
She was cited in various links above, such as this one.

Quote:
Fagin Davis naturally had strong opinions about this latest dubious claim, too, tweeting, "Sorry, folks, 'proto-Romance language' is not a thing. This is just more aspirational, circular, self-fulfilling nonsense." When Ars approached her for comment, she graciously elaborated. And she didn't mince words:

Quote:
As with most would-be Voynich interpreters, the logic of this proposal is circular and aspirational: he starts with a theory about what a particular series of glyphs might mean, usually because of the word's proximity to an image that he believes he can interpret. He then investigates any number of medieval Romance-language dictionaries until he finds a word that seems to suit his theory. Then he argues that because he has found a Romance-language word that fits his hypothesis, his hypothesis must be right. His "translations" from what is essentially gibberish, an amalgam of multiple languages, are themselves aspirational rather than being actual translations.

In addition, the fundamental underlying argument—that there is such a thing as one 'proto-Romance language'—is completely unsubstantiated and at odds with paleolinguistics. Finally, his association of particular glyphs with particular Latin letters is equally unsubstantiated. His work has never received true peer review, and its publication in this particular journal is no sign of peer confidence.
Lisa Fagin Davis, Executive Director of the Medieval Academy of America, actually is an expert in this field.

There's plenty of other criticism by others, not just Pelling. Try reading some of the other links above, as well as links in the news stories about this. Reactions by experts have been uniformly negative (when they could keep from laughing), which is why the University of Bristol pulled their press release and distanced themselves from Cheshire.

Quote:
And sure, if you say so.
Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Last edited by Colibri; 05-18-2019 at 09:09 PM.
  #157  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
She was cited in various links above, such as this one.



Lisa Fagin Davis, Executive Director of the Medieval Academy of America, actually is an expert in this field.
She does seem quite reputable, unlike Pelling. That doesnt look good for Cheshire.
  #158  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
A general rule of thumb in life for finding the right answer is to find the side that you are on and pick the opposite. I am just devastated at your disapproval.
You know, a good debater would have said something like this "Sorry, in my eagerness, I pointed to a dubious cite by a man who is by no means a expert. I am sorry for that, but I still think Cheshire is wrong and my other cites say so."

Instead you double down on the sarcasm and refuse to admit your cite was bogus.
  #159  
Old 05-18-2019, 10:19 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You know, a good debater would have said something like this "Sorry, in my eagerness, I pointed to a dubious cite by a man who is by no means a expert. I am sorry for that, but I still think Cheshire is wrong and my other cites say so."

The man is an acknowledged authority on the Voynich manuscript who has been writing about it and other undecyphered documents for well over a decade. He makes no claim as to having decoded it, but has written a book speculating on the history of the document and possibilities as to how it is encrypted. The site is not dubious, the guy is not a crackpot, he can't help that Fortean Times gave a positive review to his book on the subject. He has more credibility in the clippings from his pinky toe than you have in your entire body.
  #160  
Old 05-18-2019, 10:23 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,608
Here is a post from Pelling from today (that I linked earlier but didn't quote)


Quote:
...in very many ways, I developed my Averlino theory straight out of the mainstream of Voynich research – for example, the cryptanalytic side of Curse offers an account of Voynichese conceptually very close to that put forward decades previously by Brigadier John Tiltman (and I tried to make this debt quite clear in the book). At the same time, I tried (in the historical parts of the book) to explore the historical consequences of what it would mean if Averlino’s little books of secrets (that he appears to have compiled in the early 1450s) were in fact the source material for what ended up as the Voynich Manuscript. This exact technical approach – hypothesizing authorship of a contested document, and then examining the consequences – is what mainstream historians have done for decades: so this was normal historical stuff.
Moreover, I generally tried hard to build on previous work and scholarship: unlike arguably the majority of Voynich theories, I didn’t offer up any kind of alt.history take on events, or attempt some kind of shocking rewrite of the history books etc.
As I hope you know, I have always fully acknowledged the possibility that my Averlino hypothesis might well turn out to be wrong: in fact, I spent a lot of my research time consciously trying to find historical evidence that would disprove it, but was not able to.
In summary: I still think that what I put forward was as close to a fully-fleshed-out mainstream historical theory concerning the Voynich Manuscript as anyone has yet achieved, and I built that from the inside of historical discourse, not as a crackpot outsider.
PS: while the system I proposed combined verbose cipher (e.g. the glyph groups qo/ol/or/al/ar/ee/eee/ain/aiin/aiiin etc all encipher a single token each), in-page transposition (possibly via Neal keys), and 15th century abbreviating scribal shorthand (e.g. contraction and truncation), it didn’t obviously include polyalphabetic substitution, sorry if that somehow wasn’t clear.

That isn't the temperament of a crackpot, unlike the bombastic clown that you have hitched your wagon to. And the fact that you didn't know about other detractors to Cheshire shows that you haven't even bothered even reading the multiple links posted in this thread.
  #161  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:09 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You know, a good debater would have said something like this "Sorry, in my eagerness, I pointed to a dubious cite by a man who is by no means a expert. I am sorry for that, but I still think Cheshire is wrong and my other cites say so."
If you were a good debater, you would stop harping over and over on a cite you don't like, and actually address the criticisms of Cheshire.
  #162  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:15 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
The man is an acknowledged authority on the Voynich manuscript who has been writing about it and other undecyphered documents for well over a decade. He makes no claim as to having decoded it, but has written a book speculating on the history of the document and possibilities as to how it is encrypted. The site is not dubious, the guy is not a crackpot, he can't help that Fortean Times gave a positive review to his book on the subject. He has more credibility in the clippings from his pinky toe than you have in your entire body.
He has a MBA, no scientific degree. He makes computer games. His book appears bunkum, but only from a couple pages available and from reviews. He CHOOSE that review to appear on his page. And if Colibri is right, this guy is wrong also. Either this guys is just as deluded as Cheshire, or the Manuscript can be decoded- but incidentally Pellings system doesn't work, either.


Like when debating the Pyramids, you drag in Hancock. You lose all credibility. And you wont even acknowledge it.

Note that Pelling wrote "BECOME A VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT EXPERT IN JUST 5 MINUTES…"

And by "acknowledged authority on the Voynich manuscript" you mean the guy sez he is as he runs a website dedicated to his theories, and attacking any that disagree with HIS theories.

This article in CSICOP debunks Pelling (and everyone else), but does agree with Colibri in that he thinks it is a hoax.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/0...obody_can_read

I am starting to think Colibri may be right. But if he is then Pelling is just as wrong as Cheshire except Pelling is trying to make a buck at it selling to credulous audiences, like the Fortean times sells to. Which makes Pelling a huckster, and Cheshire a honest scientist who just happens to be wrong.
  #163  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
If you were a good debater, you would stop harping over and over on a cite you don't like, and actually address the criticisms of Cheshire.
I did, I said "She does seem quite reputable, unlike Pelling. That doesnt look good for Cheshire."

But if your theory is correct, and that article in CSICOP agrees with you, then Pelling is just as wrong as Cheshire except Pelling is trying to milk a credulous public of their money, which Cheshire, like a good scientist, published in a peer reviewed Journal.
  #164  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:25 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
But if your theory is correct, and that article in CSICOP agrees with you, then Pelling is just as wrong as Cheshire except Pelling is trying to milk a credulous public of their money, which Cheshire, like a good scientist, published in a peer reviewed Journal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
If you were a good debater, you would stop harping over and over on a cite you don't like, and actually address the criticisms of Cheshire.
How about it?
  #165  
Old 05-19-2019, 12:42 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,608
Quote:
Note that Pelling wrote "BECOME A VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT EXPERT IN JUST 5 MINUTES…"
Yep. In this blog post from 2008. Where he says "the VMs is a mysterious old handwritten book that nobody can read. Not even me!" and "we still know basically sod all about the VMs." He says that he hasn't decrypted it in a post two years after the publication of the book where the straw man you are flogging is supposed to have claimed to have decoded it.



Are you getting tired of winning yet?
  #166  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:46 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,608
A new quote from Cheshire in this detailed piece.


Quote:
In an email to MailOnline, he wrote that his work was ‘largely intuitive’:
He said: ‘I could just see that it was possible. My unrelated academic work involves a lot of thought experiment and lateral thinking, so I employed a similar technique.
‘The most important thing is to think creatively and play with ideas, but always go for the most likely possibilities. That is known as Occam’s razor, in scientific circles.
‘Thus, the language proto-Romance was deduced to be the most likely for the time and place, even though there were no other known examples.’

Next up, someone needs to decrypt this article, which asserts that "Cheshire was a Dominican nun as a writer."
  #167  
Old 05-19-2019, 10:02 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerard Cheshire
‘Thus, the language proto-Romance was deduced to be the most likely for the time and place, even though there were no other known examples.’
Cheshire deduced the place from a fanciful and completely unconfirmed interpretation of one set of illustrations, and the date he assigns is a little later than the most likely carbon dating of the MS. And even if this imaginary language existed, it would have been a millennium earlier. So his ability to evaluate "most likely" is suspect to say the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Next up, someone needs to decrypt this article, which asserts that "Cheshire was a Dominican nun as a writer."
That looks like it was written in proto-Romance and run through Google Translate.

Quote:
For years be preached to such breakthroughs, and most of the researchers as nonsense dismissed. The manuscript has already been decrypted as Hebrew, old Turkish, or even the Aztec language of Nahuatl. Weight got Cheshires article but because it appeared in the journal “Romance Studies”.
It still makes a lot more sense than Cheshire's "translations."

Last edited by Colibri; 05-19-2019 at 10:05 AM.
  #168  
Old 05-19-2019, 10:18 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
That looks like it was written in proto-Romance and run through Google Translate.

My favorite part:



Quote:
For the renowned US-from the middle ages, researcher Lisa Fagin Davis, the Cheshire-theory “nonsense”: “Sorry people, Proto-Romanesque, there is not”, tweeted you.

The whole site is like that. Here is an article from your field.
  #169  
Old 05-19-2019, 02:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
How about it?

I see, so Darren Garrison can keep pushin Pelling the pseudoscientist, But I shouldn't respond, eh?
  #170  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:12 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I see, so Darren Garrison can keep pushin Pelling the pseudoscientist, But I shouldn't respond, eh?
You've responded approximately 5,921,419 times. We get it, already. The problem is, you're not responding to much of anything else.
  #171  
Old 05-19-2019, 04:11 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I see, so Darren Garrison can keep pushin Pelling the pseudoscientist, But I shouldn't respond, eh?
You're not trying to address any of Pelling's criticisms, all you're doing is bashing Pelling. And that doesn't give any more credibility to Cheshire.

As you often do, you're falling back on arguments from authority and ad hominem arguments instead of actually trying to address any of the facts. You say Cheshire has credibility just because he has a Ph.D. (which is actually in a different field than linguistics) and the article was in a peer-reviewed journal. You say Pelling's criticism's must be false because of what you allege about his background. But you don't actually factually address the arguments or my or other people's criticisms.

Also as you often do, you've failed to read citations in other posts in the thread, or get wrong what they say. You haven't try to evaluate Cheshire's (or Pelling's) arguments objectively. Instead, you hijack and distract by repeatedly attacking Pelling on personal grounds. This is not the way to get anyone to take your opinions on the matter seriously.

Last edited by Colibri; 05-19-2019 at 04:13 PM.
  #172  
Old 05-20-2019, 03:22 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,608
Cheshire tells Fox News that the lurkers support him in e-mail:


Quote:
“I might add, that the information has actually been available for two whole years and in that time many southern European scholars have verified its efficacy, simply because they speak Romance languages and can therefore intuitively see that it is correct,”
  #173  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:11 PM
markn+ is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: unknown; Speed: exactly 0
Posts: 2,365
But he can't name any of those southern European scholars, or get any of them to support him publicly?
  #174  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:41 PM
Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 21,072
The Voynich manuscript has been decoded (differently) more times than Noah's Ark has been found.
  #175  
Old 05-20-2019, 11:26 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicat View Post
The Voynich manuscript has been decoded (differently) more times than Noah's Ark has been found.
It would be interesting to tabulate how many different languages it has been alleged to be. Bonus points if the language is imaginary, like proto-Romance.
  #176  
Old 05-21-2019, 12:38 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,608
Here is a partial list. Some other solvers show up in the comments--the very first asserts that it is "The Heavenly Language” and the plants illustrated were from the Garden of Eden.
  #177  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:25 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
the plants illustrated were from the Garden of Eden.
I don't know if they were from Heaven, but they sure aren't anything from Planet Earth.
  #178  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:57 AM
Rough Draft is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
I don't know if they were from Heaven, but they sure aren't anything from Planet Earth.
As someone with only a casual interest in the Voynich Manuscript, I find this particularly noteworthy. Only a few people have even attempted to relate the botanical illustrations with known plants, and they're not very persuasive (Sunflowers? Really?).

If all those botanical images are clearly fantasies, it strongly suggests to me that the entire manuscript is.
  #179  
Old 05-21-2019, 11:20 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rough Draft View Post
As someone with only a casual interest in the Voynich Manuscript, I find this particularly noteworthy. Only a few people have even attempted to relate the botanical illustrations with known plants, and they're not very persuasive (Sunflowers? Really?).

If all those botanical images are clearly fantasies, it strongly suggests to me that the entire manuscript is.
I've said this before, but if this is meant to be a real herbal, it's the worst one ever produced. At best, the illustrations are inaccurate, but more often they are fantastic mishmashes of features from entirely different plants. If the object was to convey information about known plants, the author/illustrator failed miserably. AFAIK the plants illustrated in most medieval herbals are reasonably identifiable with known medicinal plants even without the text. Those in the Voynich MS are not.
  #180  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:41 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,608
New article, linking to this devastating flock of tweets.
  #181  
Old 05-23-2019, 12:18 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
New article, linking to this devastating flock of tweets.
My favorite:

Quote:
In other words, this interpretation has not really been arrived by a study of the script itself first. It's just been a leap into the abyss.

Last edited by Colibri; 05-23-2019 at 12:18 AM.
  #182  
Old 05-23-2019, 12:55 AM
gkster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,817
Great flock of tweets! Faves below:

Five women in a bath are labelled with 'temperaments'. Really? I'd've gone with names, I have to admit. Apparently one of the temperaments is 'golden bird', which I sort of like as a kind of Proto-Romance Scouse slang.

Right, well we now get a whole phrase: la naza éo eme ona oma nor nais t. On the basis of no fewer than 6 languages this phrase means 'The baby it's to acquire good growth as for normal birth'. Hot tip: if your translation doesn't make sense, it might be a sign.

Furthermore, the 6 'Romance' languages include - are you ready for this? - Greek
  #183  
Old 05-23-2019, 07:36 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
My favorite:
My favorite:
Quote:
To be honest, I have kind of lost the will to live now.
  #184  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:33 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
New article, linking to this devastating flock of tweets.
Interestingly,the article points out how Cheshire was able to game peer-review: he submitted it to a journal in an inappropriate field. Romance Studies is a journal on Romance literature, not linguistics. For some obscure reason the editor decided to accept it for review. Maybe he just wanted an article on some unusual topic for the journal or had some space to fill.

I wonder how many other journals Cheshire submitted the article to that rejected it. Apparently this thing has been floating around for two years. In any case, the reviewers would most likely have been experts on literature rather than linguistics, and reviewed it from that perspective. The article has never received a review from a scientific perspective. And it was peer-reviewed only in the sense that non-experts in linguistics were asked to review a paper by another non-expert in linguistics.

Many journals provide the dates a MS was submitted, and when it was accepted, to establish priority. This one doesn't, so there is no way to establish how long the review process was. There is also no acknowledgement section, in which an author thanks colleagues who have read the document and provided comments, as well as the "anonymous reviewers" for the journal, whom it is customary to thank for "comments that improved the MS" no matter how critical they were. Apparently Cheshire either did not ask any colleagues or other experts to comment on it, or their comments were so negative he decided to ignore them.

So what we have is:

1) An article on linguistics by a biologist/human behaviorist/science writer
2) with no evident previous experience or expertise in linguistics, and no previous journal publications in the field.
3) published in a journal of literature rather than linguistics
4) and probably reviewed by experts on literature rather than linguistics.

It's no wonder actual linguists are having a field day with it.

Last edited by Colibri; 05-23-2019 at 11:02 AM.
  #185  
Old 05-23-2019, 10:23 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Here is a partial list. Some other solvers show up in the comments--the very first asserts that it is "The Heavenly Language” and the plants illustrated were from the Garden of Eden.
So, along with other cranks, Erich von Däniken has written about it. (I wasn't even aware that he's still alive.) Not surprising, I suppose. I'm guessing that his theory involves space aliens.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885

Last edited by davidm; 05-23-2019 at 10:25 AM.
  #186  
Old 05-23-2019, 11:53 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
For some obscure reason the editor decided to accept it for review. Maybe he just wanted an article on some unusual topic for the journal or had some space to fill.

There is an off-hand comment in the tweets that implies that you have to pay $2000 to have your paper published in the journal. Maybe big enough suckers don't come around that often.
  #187  
Old 05-23-2019, 12:13 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
There is an off-hand comment in the tweets that implies that you have to pay $2000 to have your paper published in the journal.
Apparently not. From the journal website:

Quote:
Publication charges
There are no submission fees, publication fees or page charges for this journal.
However, there appears to be a charge for making an article open access, as opposed to being behind a paywall.

The journal is published by Taylor&Francis, a major academic publisher that publishes more the 2,700 journals. As far as I can see the journal is legit, and not a predatory journal that charges publication fees while not conducting peer review. It's just not an appropriate journal for this topic.
  #188  
Old 05-23-2019, 01:07 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,160
A point of view one might take is that in this case true peer review worked well and swiftly, revealing the true worth of Cheshire's work on the Voynich Manuscript to all and sundry.
  #189  
Old 05-24-2019, 12:09 PM
APB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
However, there appears to be a charge for making an article open access, as opposed to being behind a paywall.

The journal is published by Taylor&Francis, a major academic publisher that publishes more the 2,700 journals. As far as I can see the journal is legit, and not a predatory journal that charges publication fees while not conducting peer review.
That's now standard for UK-based academic journals, as the main UK funding bodies have completely changed the business model for them away from one based on institutional subscriptions, in order to help make such publications freely available.
  #190  
Old 05-25-2019, 11:17 PM
Yllaria is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yllaria View Post
Sigh. My favorite YouTube VMer was picking out words, not in Proto-Romance, but in Proto-Romani. He was also starting with picking out the short strings (labels?) associated with illustrations. He concentrated on the astrology section.

I didn't bookmark him, though, thinking that there can't be that many VM videos. Hah! I'll probably never find it again.
Found him! It was Derek Vogt, posting as Volder Z. Going back over the two (now three) videos, I found he had based his character work on work by Stephen Bax, Professor of Applied Linguistics. [Warning. The linked videos below are about an hour each and they're detailed enough to be boring to anyone who isn't interested in the actual linguistics.]

Bax's videos can be found here (where he has provisionally identified 12 characters and ten words) and here (where he has provisionally identified 14 characters and ten words). In the second video, he lists useful sources, which include:

Yale Library http://www.beinecke.library.yale.edu,
Jason Davies http://www.jasondavies.com/voynich (with every page of the manuscript available),
Rene’ Zandbergen http://www.voynich.nu (history)(best background),
Nick Pelling http://www.ciphermysteries.com (good for reviews of current VM related events), and
Edith Sherwood http://wwwedithsherwood.com (plants)

The Volder Z videos are on identifying more characters, identifying a possible language, and an update on additional medieval events that might pertain to the translation. This is much more analytical than the article that prompted this thread. Nobody who's worth listening to says they have anything conclusive. They always use words like 'provisional' and 'partial'. Although they do start by trying to identify words based on the illustrations, they are circumspect in their choices. Bax starts with one name in one astronomy drawing and names of four plants, and references others for the identifications. They both mention that it took X years to assemble this or that. Not once did something happen in two weeks.

Oh, and Fricatization of Plosives would make a great band name.
  #191  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:03 AM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
She does seem quite reputable, unlike Pelling. That doesnt look good for Cheshire.
It's quite frankly, irrelevant. People with "real PhDs" should at least know that credentialism has no place in scientific discourse. Is the methodology sound? Are the conclusions consistent with the data? Doesn't matter if they're a plumber or an academic rock star. If you don't understand the methodology, then it's best to meditate on what Twain (apocryphally) said about opening one's mouth and removing all doubt before attempting to criticizing others' arguments based on their credentials. Or (for fucks sake are you for real?) based on praise or their book by some third party you don't like.

Several actual arguments have been presented in this thread. Do you understand them enough to counter them?
  #192  
Old 05-26-2019, 06:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
It's quite frankly, irrelevant. People with "real PhDs" should at least know that credentialism has no place in scientific discourse. Is the methodology sound? Are the conclusions consistent with the data? Doesn't matter if they're a plumber or an academic rock star. If you don't understand the methodology, then it's best to meditate on what Twain (apocryphally) said about opening one's mouth and removing all doubt before attempting to criticizing others' arguments based on their credentials. Or (for fucks sake are you for real?) based on praise or their book by some third party you don't like.

Several actual arguments have been presented in this thread. Do you understand them enough to counter them?


I have no idea of what you are babbling about. No one here has presented their own argument, they presented other peoples arguments. The first anti argument was really bad by a known crank, pushing his own crank argument. The next anti-argument was quite good, and i concurred with it.

Are you saying Fagin Davis's argument that Cheshire is wrong is incorrect?

what are you arguing?

Last edited by DrDeth; 05-26-2019 at 06:18 PM.
  #193  
Old 05-26-2019, 10:39 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I have no idea of what you are babbling about. No one here has presented their own argument, they presented other peoples arguments.
Nonsense. Have you actually read the thread? This is the most absurd thing you have said in the thread so far. I presented my own analyses and assessment of Cheshire's arguments several times. Yllaria and DPRK have also provided their own takes on it. You have ignored these.

Quote:
The first anti argument was really bad by a known crank, pushing his own crank argument. The next anti-argument was quite good, and i concurred with it.
Pelling's arguments against the article were actually excellent. You merely dismissed them out of hand because of your opinion about Pelling. You are assessing arguments not on their merits but because of your biases.

Quote:
Are you saying Fagin Davis's argument that Cheshire is wrong is incorrect?

what are you arguing?
If you had actually read and understood Ruken's post, you would know he is simply saying that arguments should be evaluated on their merits, not on the basis of the argument from authority or ad hominum arguments, as you have consistently done in this thread.

You really don't get this scientific method stuff, do you? You evidently don't understand any of the arguments well enough to either support them or counter them. And that doesn't depend on knowing linguistics, but on being able to recognize logical fallacies and circular reasoning.

You really should stop digging. You're contributing nothing to this thread but pointless distraction.

Last edited by Colibri; 05-26-2019 at 10:45 PM.
  #194  
Old 05-26-2019, 11:07 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Nonsense. Have you actually read the thread? I presented my own analyses and assessment of Cheshire's arguments several times. Yllaria and DPRK have also provided their own takes on it. You have ignored these.



Pelling's arguments against the article were actually excellent. You merely dismissed them out of hand because of your opinion about Pelling. You are assessing arguments not on their merits but because of your biases.



If you had actually read and understood Ruken's post, you would know he is simply saying that arguments should be evaluated on their merits, not on the basis of the argument from authority or ad hominum arguments, as you have consistently done in this thread.

You really don't get this scientific method stuff, do you? You evidently don't understand any of the arguments well enough to either support them or counter them. And that doesn't depend on knowing linguistics, but on being able to recognize logical fallacies and circular reasoning.

You really should stop digging. You're contributing nothing to this thread but pointless distraction.
DPRK was talking about some previous translations, where did he do a serious analysis of Cheshires work? Which post of Yllaria's are you talking about?


Look, Pelling wrote his own crackpot book translating the Manuscript. He is trying to sell his own pseudoscientific book. He has no academic qualifications other that having his own blog and stating his is a expert.

Sure, and like I said I am not a expert on this (Nor is anyone else posting here, afaik). So when it's published in a legit Peer reviewed reviewed journal, there's is nothing wrong with laymen saying "that looks convincing"- because being published in a a legit Peer reviewed reviewed journal is convincing- it's supposed to be- that's how science works.




Now sure, other scientists can later publish their refutations of that paper, and that's also how science works. But Pelling didnt publish a refutation, he wrote something in his own blog, because he wanted to sell his own crackpot theories. He is biased. Nor is he a scientist. Even a little. Now, i agree, having PhD after you name doesnt mean you are always right- even geniuses like Pauling were pretty wrong a couple of times. But you know how we know Pauling was wrong? Because other scientists tried to replicate his results and failed. Not because Dr phil or some other Tv personality said Linus was wrong because they wanted to hawk their own quack nostrum. That's how science works.


So when a acknowledged expert called Cheshire into question i accepted that as a decent refutation. That doesnt settle it, of course- that's not how science works, but it does cast doubts.

I understand that Ruken said that "arguments should be evaluated on their merits" but there is no one here who is a recognized expert in this field who can do so. Afaik Ruken is not that expert. Nor am I. I dont think you are, but perhaps you have several papers published in that field, I dont know.


So if you want to tell me that Dr Phil can refute Linus Pauling on his TV show because Dr Phil wants to hawk his own cold cure, and that's how science works, I am doubtful. Pauling was proven wrong by careful published refutations and failed attempts to replicate Paulings works.

But I will be fair. Read Pellings books, his translation of the Manuscript, and let us know if you think he is correct. Based upon your opinion the manuscript is a hoax, I don't think you will think Pellings theories are right either.

Last edited by DrDeth; 05-26-2019 at 11:12 PM.
  #195  
Old 05-26-2019, 11:27 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Let's assume Colibri, that your theory- shared by CSICOP, so that's something- is correct and that the VM is a haox. Ok, I am starting to lean that way myself. Great.

So that means Cheshire is wrong. Ok. Fine.

But that also means Pelling is wrong.
  #196  
Old 05-26-2019, 11:50 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sure, and like I said I am not a expert on this (Nor is anyone else posting here, afaik). So when it's published in a legit Peer reviewed reviewed journal, there's is nothing wrong with laymen saying "that looks convincing"- because being published in a a legit Peer reviewed reviewed journal is convincing- it's supposed to be- that's how science works.
Nope. As a scientist, I've told you that's not how science works. Peer-review gives some degree of credibility, but it is not convincing. It's also clear that Cheshire's article never received a real peer-review by linguists. You really do not get it.

Quote:
I understand that Ruken said that "arguments should be evaluated on their merits" but there is no one here who is a recognized expert in this field who can do so. Afaik Ruken is not that expert. Nor am I. I dont think you are, but perhaps you have several papers published in that field, I dont know.
I've said several times that you don't need to be an expert in linguistics in order to evaluate methodology, logical fallacies, and circular reasoning. You've indicated that that you are not able to do this, but that doesn't mean that others can't.

Quote:
But I will be fair. Read Pellings books, his translation of the Manuscript, and let us know if you think he is correct. Based upon your opinion the manuscript is a hoax, I don't think you will think Pellings theories are right either.
Pelling's books are irrelevant to his opinions of Cheshire's article, which need to be evaluated on their merits, a fact that you seem unable to admit.

Last edited by Colibri; 05-26-2019 at 11:51 PM.
  #197  
Old 05-26-2019, 11:51 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
But that also means Pelling is wrong.
He's not wrong about his opinion that Cheshire is wrong.
  #198  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:19 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
He's not wrong about his opinion that Cheshire is wrong.
With that, I give up, you win.
  #199  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:21 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
With that, I give up, you win.
Great.
  #200  
Old 05-27-2019, 02:37 AM
Yllaria is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
DPRK was talking about some previous translations, where did he do a serious analysis of Cheshires work? Which post of Yllaria's are you talking about?. . . .
Post #78. Not to pile on, but I read Cheshire's piece and he made three complete misstatements about the state of VM scholarship in his introduction. My knowledge of VM scholarship is shallow, but he made it obvious that his knowledge was shallower. And they were red flag, self congratulating misstatements. The rest is in the post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Let's assume Colibri, that your theory- shared by CSICOP, so that's something- is correct and that the VM is a haox. Ok, I am starting to lean that way myself. Great.

So that means Cheshire is wrong. Ok. Fine.

But that also means Pelling is wrong.
Did Colibri actually say the VM was a hoax? If so, I missed that.

Also, Pelling does not pretend to be an academic, nor does he pretend to have solved the VM. He's written a book about the history of the VM. I haven't read the book, but at least one researcher feels he's made a contribution, if only by aggregating information.

Quote:
However, following a number of lucky breaks in my research, I became convinced that, even if I could not crack its cipher, I could still break its history, and tell its lost story: and that this secret history would be fascinating to many people.
He's apparently spent years futzing with the VM. Before he had a blog, he was part of an international Voynich mailing list. He's a fan. Unlike Cheshire, he knows his limitations.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017