Programm der Voynich-Konferenz 2022 veröffentlicht

Kommentare (10)

1. #1 D.N.O'Donovan

   4. November 2022

   How you define a ‘great’ scholar is of course up to you.
   For myself, I consider a person’s published papers or books and whether they show depth, range and balance of scholarship, signs of original effort made to investigate primary and secondary sources, the range and balance of their acknowledged sources, and of course their bibliography.
   To become a great scholar these days, I think, one must have a formal area of specialisation. For example, I would consider Alain Touwaide to be a great scholar in his field, and Elly Deckker in his, the test being that other specialists in the history of medieval medicine would agree about the one, and specialists in the history of medieval European astronomy about the other, regardess of any personal connections.
   Such specialists’ separate opinions on any one manuscript are valuable simply because they bring to bear in mentioning it the whole range of their existing expertise in their own field of scholarship.

   I would be interested to know, Klaus, who you would name as a great scholar in the history of cryptography?

2. #2 Christian Meesters

   4. November 2022

   @D.N.O’Donovan

   Interesting question. Although, I do not know why you pick on the “great scholar” term. My guess would be that this is triggered by the phrase “known greats from the Voynich scene” in the DeepL translation, yet an alternate translation might(!) be “known figures” or simply “known people” from the scene.

   Whenever emphasis is asked for, automatic translation tools still suffer a bit from the fact that they do not understand the text they are translating – and they do not necessarily carry the subtle differences the original author intends. (Disclaimer: I do NOT know the intended meaning of this sentence myself. This is just idle speculation.)

3. #3 Richard SantaColoma

   https://proto57.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/the-modern-forgery-hypothesis/

   4. November 2022

   Hi Klaus, as to your point here:

   “I find it a pity that many long-time known greats from the Voynich scene do not appear in the program. Neither Richard SantaColoma nor Nick Pelling nor Torsten Timm nor Elmar Vogt nor Gordon Rugg nor Andreas Schinner is represented with a lecture. Whether the aforementioned people did not feel like going through the elaborate peer review process, whether their papers were rejected, or whether there are other reasons is unknown to me.”

   I can’t speak for the others… although I would be curious if they, too, were rejected… but I did present a submission, and was soundly rejected.

   I will try not to sound bitter about that, and I certainly support and applaud those who are in the Conference. But at the risk of evoking “sour grapes”, I do have to point out that two of my three reviewers did reject my paper on shaky, hypocritical and illogical grounds.

   One reason given was that I used “speculation”. But each and every hypothesis about the Voynich must rely heavily on speculation. Beyond the dating of the parchment, and the inclusion of a very few identifiable objects, everything about the origin, dating, meaning, and content of the Voynich is almost 100% speculative. And speculation is obviously a part of several of the lectures, such as the presumed presence of “tents”, the identification of some book or similar books in the collections of Rudolf II, the similarities of the Voynich to a Sloane manuscript, and so on.

   Nothing wrong with speculation, but to single out my paper on that basis is hypocritical.

   Also, it was claimed by the organizers that the papers would not be judged by whether or not the idea is plausible or correct, that is, the reviewers were not to apply their own preconceptions to them… however it was stated that one reason I was rejected was because the reviewer did not believe the Voynich was a forgery!

   There was much more to call into question the professionalism and fairness of the “vetting”, in my case, but to give one good example, I was told, “the abstract does not refer to the large body of volume that supports fifteenth-century provenance, which requires rebuttal if the forgery thesis is to be maintained.”

   This reflects a dire lack of knowledge of Voynich research, because there is FAR from a “large body of volume that supports fifteenth-century provenance”. There is, actually zero provenance pointing to the 15th century. If one wants to accept the thin mentions in the 17th century letters of the Kircher Carteggio, so be it. But there is NONE for the 15th. The only evidence for a 15th century origin is not provenance, but the radiocarbon dating of the leaves. Nothing else, except speculative connections, perhaps.

   And so on. The point to my rant being this: While organizers of such events claim, and believe, that they are doing the field of Voynich research a favor by filtering out those ideas that they personally believe cannot be correct, and filtering them on a grossly unequal basis (which they seem blissfully unaware of), by doing so they are doing the investigation a terrible disservice, and countering the basic and valuable principles of scientific research.

   If we don’t hear from, and consider, points we may disagree with, we drastically lessen the possibility that the answer will be heard. Or found.

   One last thing to consider: The board of Malta, along with all the other institutions which limit the discussion of the Voynich, are quick to tell others “what the Voynich cannot be”, and even warn people not to try (another discussion, another rant). But at the same time, they have NO idea what the Voynich is, what it says, what it contains. None. So the very same people who tell you want it is NOT, cannot come close to telling you what it IS.

   Rant over. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the other presenters, who I applaud, and look forward to their presentations. Hey, it could be tents, and I think some are tents. This is about the censoring of my hypothesis, by the board of the Malta Conference, on illogical grounds, using selective standards to do so.

4. #4 Klaus Schmeh

   4. November 2022

   @Rich:
   Thank you very much for your comment. I know this situation very well. When you receive a comment and a rating from an anonymous reviewer, there is no way to defend yourself. Even if a reviewer states complete nonsense, you have to accept it.

   One of the reviews Elonka and I received for our paper was very negative. I’m glad that the others were positive, which led to the submission being accepted.

5. #5 Klaus Schmeh

   4. November 2022

   @D.N.O’Donovan
   In fact, the DeepL translation was note quite accurate here. I changed the phrasing to “the world’s leading expert”. In my view, this expression is justified, as René is extremely knowledgeable and he has published a lot about the VM. In addition, virtually everything he says about the VM makes sense to me. Apparently, the organizers of the VC22 are of a similar opinion. Otherwise they wouldn’t have invited him as a keynote speaker.

6. #6 Helmut Winkler

   5. November 2022

   Ich hatte mir überlegt, einen Vortrag einzureichen, aber der Aufwand wäre sehr gross gewesen und in der peer review war zu erwaren, dass ein Grobschmied und zwei Schuster die Arbei eines Feinmechanikers beurtelen wollten, also habe ich es bleiben lassen.
   Und ich bin zwar anderer Ansicht als Rich, was die Hs. berifft, aber ansonsten hat er Recht

7. #7 Christian Reinhard

   5. November 2022

   Since Lisa Fagin Davis and Renè Zandbergen are part of the Programme Committee they literally invited themself as keynote speakers.

   For me René Zandbergen role is ambiguous. To my taste he is arguing too often that he doesn’t know anything for certain and that people coming up with a hypotheses “are not capable of judging Voynich MS solutions or theories in a proper neutral way”. To invite someone not able to accept his own bias as a member of the Programme Committee as well as a keynote speaker was probably not the right choice.

8. #8 Richard SantaColoma

   https://proto57.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/the-modern-forgery-hypothesis/

   6. November 2022

   Hello, Helmut. You wrote, “Und ich bin zwar anderer Ansicht als Rich, was die Hs. berifft, aber ansonsten hat er Recht”

   And that, in my opinion, is a healthy and constructive viewpoint. Disagreement is wonderful, it is the fertilizer for open discussion and debate, and even argument. And then, in that discussion, everyone learns something. I have learned as much from people whom I have disagreed with, maybe more, than from those I agree with.

9. #9 Richard SantaColoma

   https://proto57.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/the-modern-forgery-hypothesis/

   6. November 2022

   Klaus: Thank you, again, for your reasoned and understanding response. You always speak with an open mind, using common sense.

   You and Elonka got one negative review, I got the opposite, one positive out of the three. It was not enough points to counter the negatives, of course. For general interest, I will copy it here, “This is an important perspective and definitely worth inviting the author to submit the full paper. Will he address the evidence AGAINST forgery? This will be important. I feel pretty strongly that it is VERY unlikely that the manuscript is a forgery, but I am willing to hear the evidence IF the author is willing to consider the evidence against the theory.”

   It is similar to Helmut’s opinion, above. This reviewer clearly stated a strong opinion as to the possibility of forgery, but wanted to hear the my case. And I would have, in turn, included the perspective he/she suggested, “evidence against the theory”.

   I do, by the way, do that already… as anyone who is familiar with my hypothesis will know. In fact, when you have as entrenched a paradigm as the Voynich exists within that is, an almost universal conclusion that it must be 15th century, genuine, and European, the largest part of explaining why it is actually a new forgery is in showing why that paradigm is based on error, opinion, pre-conceptions, and censorship of opposing ideas.

   As Thomas Kuhn famously explained, paradigms defend themselves from challenges, from critics, and not always in scientific ways. The keepers of the paradigm, the believers in it, ignore internal anomalies and anachronisms, or ignore or dismiss or censor them outright.

   This is not a malicious process, or purposefully unfair. It is a natural phenomenon which is an offshoot, a result, of the scientific process, which progresses not in a linear way, but in “fits and starts”. Scientific paradigms are formed, and defend themselves against critique (in both good and bad ways). They are often challenged, and if the challenge fails, the paradigm continues relatively unchanged. If the challenge succeeds, a New Paradigm forms.

   I and others who hold that the Voynich is a modern forgery, and not a very good one at that, know we have our work cut out for us. I understand the process, although incidents like the Malta rejection of challenges to the Paradigm are frustrating, I also understand it is the nature of the “game”.

   I do believe… and I hope this is in my lifetime… that it eventually be accepted what I now understand to be the case, that the Voynich is a circa 1910 forgery. But meanwhile I will point out what is what I consider a very similar case of a New Paradigm being formed: The Vineland Map. The item is very different of course, but much of the politics around it are similar… it is even owned by the same institution as the VMs. But the Vineland map was controversial for decades, and an item of fierce debate. The Yale position, that it was genuine, withstood challenges to its authenticity all this time. It was even held up as an example, to me, why I was wrong! But recently that paradigm fell, and it is now accepted, by Yale… and their curator, Clemens, as a forgery.

   In any case, there are ways to allow others to see my ideas, and the ideas of others, so that people are free to make up their own minds, and not have the science, and message, censored. I appreciate, for instance, blogs such as yours, Klaus, because you do allow all opinions to appear in your comments sections… even my angst-ridden rants!

   All the best, and keep up the good work… Rich.

10. #10 Richard SantaColoma

    https://proto57.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/modern-voynich-myths/

    10. November 2022

    About Voynich “expertise”: I absolutely agree that René is the most well-versed expert on the Voynich manuscript (hi, René!). I don’t think there is anyone who would challenge this. But I think it is very important to make a few distinctions about what that means, and how this expertise is implemented.

    There are two major categories of Voynich knowledge, which in actuality are only speculatively related:

    1) The first is the physical Voynich itself: This area encompasses the type, condition and age of the calfskin, how the manuscript was bound, the number of quires and leaves, the makeup of the inks, paints, binders, stitching, covers, text counts and comparisons, the wonderful transcription EVA, and so on. Also, the various word and character counts, and other studies on the text of the Voynich. And of course the nature of the illustrations, and plant comparisons, and so on. Far too much to list: for everything related to the physical book in the Beineke, one can do no better than to consult René’s “nu” site, as it is THE place to go.

    But in this category I must add a disclaimer: Most of the conclusions give are “in the light of” a genuine, early 15th century work. There is an unconscious bias to much of the data and information presented, in order to tailor it to fit a desired narrative. A few quick examples, which I choose out of dozens: The radiocarbon dating was actually a much wider range of dates than 1404 to 1438. The dating results between the individual leaves tested was actually averaged out, to give a false impression that all the calves were slaughtered and prepared, and so the book created, in a much shorter time range than the actual data suggests. As I wrote on (my linked above “Myths” page), “The published range is actually a conclusion determined by combining the very different results of the four samples tested. But when looked at separately, as would have been done if not found bound together, nor assumed to be made as the same time, the results show they could be 50 to 60 years apart. And taking into account the extremes of the error range of the samples, they actually could date to as much as 132 years apart.”

    Another example might be the omission of information (unless added since I last looked), such as the whiter, clean cut edges of many of the Voynich leaves. This implies a much later (than preparation of the calfskin) reuse and construction of the Voynich, and is of course a very important bit of information. And some other findings and expert opinion is missing, such as Yale’s describing the foldouts as anachronistic “Unusual for the time…”, and Mcrone’s finding of “unusual copper and zinc”, “titanium compound”, and an inability to find one or more gum binders in their “library”.

    And so on… “nu” is indisputably the most complete source available for Voynich data. But the known facts presented on that site are edited and written to fit what I call the “1420 European Paradigm”, by both leaving out worthwhile hard evidence, and presenting some data only after personal, speculative adjustments.

    2) This category includes everything else: Again, René (hi, René!) is without doubt also the expert on everything outside the actual, physical Voynich Manuscript in the first category. This would encompass all the back story and provenance given by Voynich, and/or assumed, which includes the Jesuits, other books Voynich bought, the Letters of the Kircher Carteggio (and others not in the Carteggio), which in turn include Marci, Kinner, Baresch, Moretus et all. This category also includes the history of the Vatican, the Jesuits, Italy and the reunification, and all the players involved. The history of Joseph Strickland, Jakub Hořčický, of course, and Rudolf II… and Roger Bacon, and where do we stop?

    So please understand me, I am in absolute awe of the content here, and the expert effort it took to compile and research all of this.

    But there is a very serious problem, and that is the purely speculative assumption that any of this category has anything at all to do with the Voynich Manuscript! It is all fascinating in and of its own right, but it is only by the word of Voynich, and speculative opinion, that any of it has anything at all to do with the book found in the Beinecke today.

    I do agree it should be included as part of the “Voynich story”. But what should be made very clear is that this is all speculation… it is all a theory, an hypothesis, what have you, and not factually connected TO the Voynich. Nonetheless, it is all written as factual, so that anyone visiting a site will falsely believe it is known… for instance… that the Voynich was bought by Voynich with that sale of 30 or so other books. Or that the book described in the letters (I call it the “Baresch Manuscript”) tells us with certainty that Baresch or Marci ever owned it. Or that it was the Voynich which was sent to Kircher. Or that the book was in the Beckx library, or in the Villa Mondragone, for that matter. That the Voynich was described in a 15th catalog. That the Carteggio was “under lock and seal”, i.e., that no one could see the Letters, least of all, Voynich (when evidence implies he very well could have known of the content of the Letters). And probably hundreds of other merely assumed connections, and disconnections, with the people, places and events of this category, which are incorrectly written as fact, when they are anything but. Worse yet, these speculations are often based on very slim, and even contradictory evidence. But yet most of the important contradictions are left from this narrative, or mis-stated to appear ineffective.

    These opinions then permeate other works on the subject, be it articles, blogs, forums, books. The opinions on the “nu” site, speculatively connecting this huge corpus of information to the Voynich known today, gives anyone relying on them a bad foundation to begin. And understandably, few have the time, inclination, or dedication to winnow out the fact from opinions presented, if it even occurred to them to do so (as it had long ago, for me, and only a few others).

    So expert, yes. The “nu” site is a very impressive collection of information. But by connecting known information with speculative threads, by tailoring the entirety to fit a desired theory, a personal narrative, the “1420 Paradigm”, it stifles the progress of Voynich scholarship. If the answer to what the Voynich is lies anywhere outside of the amalgamation of fact and opinions found on “nu”, and the many branches derived from it… the conferences, blogs, articles sites and books… if what the Voynich is is outside the “nu” theory, then anyone who believes all this information to be factual will never see nor find the answer.

    I would even go as far as to say that these problems are arguably the main impediment to solving the mystery of the Voynich. I think it is the main reason many are caught in a seemingly perpetual cycle of confusion and bafflement.

    I would like to add a very important point: None of this is purposeful, certainly not malicious. It is natural for any of us to form our own opinions, and then to have that opinion affect our telling of any story. In fact, René actually invited me to present a paper to the Malta conference, and I very much appreciate that. It is why I applied. And I do think that he would have (you would have, René) put any of his own beliefs aside, were he to be one of my vetting peers, and have allowed me to speak. It was just an unfortunate and ironic result that the vetters were educated with, students of, and believers in, a projected theory of what the Voynich must be, and what it cannot be.

    I hope all this, again, does not sound too bitter nor too harsh. I’ve taken the chance and put my head on the chopping block here, but two things: I think it is extremely important to voice my view of this very serious problem, and really, I have little to lose. And for anyone understanding the value behind my observations, they will benefit greatly… whatever they come to believe, for themselves, it may come about by understanding the necessity for questioning “expert opinion”, by going to source material, and by deciding for themselves. Take nothing for granted, or you will never break free, nor progress past the opinions and speculations of others.