My favorite:
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
My favorite:
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:
- An article on linguistics by a biologist/human behaviorist/science writer
- with no evident previous experience or expertise in linguistics, and no previous journal publications in the field.
- published in a journal of literature rather than linguistics
- and probably reviewed by experts on literature rather than linguistics.
It’s no wonder actual linguists are having a field day with it.
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.
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.
Apparently not. From the journal website:
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.
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.
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.
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 Voyage the Voynich Manuscript (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.
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?
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.
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? :dubious: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He’s not wrong about his opinion that Cheshire is wrong.
With that, I give up, you win.
Great. 
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.
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.
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.