So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
arstechnica.com
So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
#2Given some of the progress here [1], there is a chance it can be translated in the near future if given the proper resources.
Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
#3This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. His crime is putting together a contextual narrative based on some existing deductions. It's a health book - "sleuths that had already reached that conclusion".
There was nothing spectacular about that article, other than he said it was settled and that doesn't sit well with people looking for greater meaning and glory. Then the "can't prove an index just because pages are missing" is basically ignoring a coherent narrative for no purpose. Even the objection to the interpretations - "Personally I object to his interpretation of abbreviations." is strangely contrarian. As you might imagine, the Voynich solution looks reasonable to me, but that's probably because I'm an ignorant layman with no stake in it.
Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
#4Given some of the progress here [1], there is a chance it can be translated in the near future if given the proper resources. [1] https://youtu.be/lhtZc-nFNt0
This latest video is very interesting, and it seems the translation is progressing
Very nice work
Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
#5This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. His crime is putting together a contextual narrative based on some existing deductions. It's a health book - "sleuths that had already reached that conclusion". There was nothing spectacul…
>This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that.
This looks like cheering for the "little man" who went against the establishment, similarly to people championing alternative diets, crystals, perpetual motion machines, and cold fusion inventors...
Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
#6This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. His crime is putting together a contextual narrative based on some existing deductions. It's a health book - "sleuths that had already reached that conclusion". There was nothing spectacul…
You can't say you cracked a mysterious coded text and then not provide the solution except to hand-wave it away by saying there's an additional reference that was lost. I can 'solve' anything that way.
If Gibbs doesn't have the plain text, at best he has a theory.
Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
#7I'm going to go off on a tangent and complain about Ars Technica here.
As a long-time reader of the site, it feels to me like lately (ie. around the time Conde Nast bought them) the quality started slowly but surely sliding down. This here is yet another minor data-point that reinforces that feeling.
The original article covering the supposed discovery was written like it's pretty much a solved thing (yes, all the usual CYA phrases are there so the author can weasel out if it turns out not to be true). Yet for anyone who's ever heard about the Voynich manuscript, the extraordinary claim that it's deciphered should be substantiated with an extraordinary amount of evidence, the lack of which wasn't questioned at all.
Then, without as much as "oops, we've been duped too", the author goes on to describe why claims covered by the first article by so much enthusiasm are not true or proven, ending with an ad-hominem about the "discoverer". This (minus the ad hominems) really should've been part of the original article. Hell, split it into two pages if you're after the clicks!
To me, this says more about Ars than about the (non)issue at hand - it's finally slid down to the level of a typical net publication.
Sad!
Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
#8This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. His crime is putting together a contextual narrative based on some existing deductions. It's a health book - "sleuths that had already reached that conclusion". There was nothing spectacul…
You can't say you cracked a mysterious coded text and then not provide the solution except to hand-wave it away by saying there's an additional reference that was lost. I can 'solve' anything that way. If Gibbs doesn't have the plain text, at best he has a theory.
Well, you can, but you probably won't get any serious critique and people will dismiss you (it seems like rightfully so in this case).
Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
#9> Gibbs said in the TLS article that he did his research for an unnamed "television network." Given that Gibbs' main claim to fame before this article was a series of books about how to write and sell television screenplays, it seems that his goal in this research was probably to sell a television screenplay of his own. In 2015, Gibbs did an interview where he said that in five years, "I would like to think I could have a returnable series up and running." Considering the dubious accuracy of many History Channel "documentaries," he might just get his wish.
Welp, this just killed any interest I had even if his idea was intriguing.
Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”
#10I'm going to go off on a tangent and complain about Ars Technica here. As a long-time reader of the site, it feels to me like lately (ie. around the time Conde Nast bought them) the quality started slowly but surely sliding down. This here is yet another minor data-point that reinforces that feeling. The original article covering the supposed discovery was written like it's pretty much a solved thing (yes, all the us…
> To me, this says more about Ars than about the (non)issue at hand - it's finally slid down to the level of a typical net publication.
One swallow does not a summer make!