So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution” • Hacker News Board

Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”

#31

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 11, 2017, 8:11 AM UTC

jack9 wrote: post #23

coldtea wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Little man" meaning what? A generalist in comparison to specialists too timid to put together a sensible conclusion for a publication?

For one, many of those specialists have indeed "put together a sensible conclusion for a publication".

They even have written articles and even books about their opinions on this manuscript (and others).

What they didn't do (well, what most didn't do, some did that too) was go ahead and shout to the media "we broke the code" when they had just as much and just as inconclusive information as any other.

The "generalist" just didn't have such qualms. It's not about him being brave enough to put 2+2 together when those pesky specialists (where he got all his knowledge from) failed to dare.

Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”

#32

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 11, 2017, 9:00 AM UTC

corndoge wrote: post #22

colejohnson66 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been downvoted (and upvoted a bit) on Ars Technica for a comment that contained nothing but facts that go against the Ars echo chamber. I don’t see that as often here on Hacker News

That last bit is less than true

[deleted]

Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”

#33

Post by Nursie » Mon, Sep 11, 2017, 10:42 AM UTC

Yeah, the last article was over-ambitious.

"We've got the solution! I've come up with a few theories (which aren't necessarily new) and can definitively say it was translatable, only we would need the index, so it's now not translatable at all. No I can't prove it. Bye!"

It wasn't very compelling.

Re: So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”

#34

Post by jack9 » Wed, Sep 13, 2017, 7:52 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #31

jack9 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Little man" meaning what? A generalist in comparison to specialists too timid to put together a sensible conclusion for a publication?

For one, many of those specialists have indeed "put together a sensible conclusion for a publication". They even have written articles and even books about their opinions on this manuscript (and others). What they didn't do (well, what most didn't do, some did that too) was go ahead and shout to the media "we broke the code" when they had just as much and just as inconclusive information as any other. The "generalist…

I gave an alternate characterization and you ran with it, ignoring the core question of what you meant by "little man" to move the goalpost. Good luck with whatever.