3 ms·

Summary: 'Till ~2020, Voynich research was pretty much reserved for nut jobs, and the very occasional academic intent upon career suicide. In 2020, a senior A

Summary: 'Till ~2020, Voynich research was pretty much reserved for nut jobs, and the very occasional academic intent upon career suicide. In 2020, a senior A List scholar published her meticulous, narrow-niche Voynich research - https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/56/article/754633/pdf https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/56/article/754633/pdf - which established that the Manuscript was the (physical) handiwork of 5 different scribes. Since then, a fair number of serious researchers have done work on the Manuscript. So far, their conclusions are similarly dull and limited. (Though they do rule out many cool categories of nut theories.)

bee_rider 2y ago
It is sort of interesting that it is a group work. It’s odd that somebody would scribble a whole journal full of random stuff, but of course people in the olden days got bored too. Convincing four other people to scribble with you seems a bit harder, haha.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Now that we have GenAI a whole book of random stuff is cheap, but back then it was expensive (and coordinating a group sounds even more expensive!), so we assume it must've had some meaning to someone, and get nerd-sniped into finding a reading. (on the other hand: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1418.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1418.html . It's amusing to see "errata"!)
- benterix 2y ago
  Check this out: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ (I had no idea this lore exist but got interested why my daughter suddenly started to talk about `scp`, I was wondering is she wants to copy some files between machines...)
- singularity2001 2y ago
  how do they rule out if these five hands come from the same person with long periods of not working on the script? My handwriting can certainly change when I take a three year break
  - DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
    Answered in the article: In certain places, the script was more cramped or more likely to slant as it crossed the page. She tested this observation by picking a letter that didn’t appear often and tracking it across the manuscript’s pages. Its style, she saw, varied among groups of pages but not within those groups. This suggested that the differences—larger or smaller loops, straighter or curvier crossbars, longer or shorter feet—were the product of different scribes rather than of one scribe writing the same letter in different ways. To reduce the possibility of selection bias, Davis examined other letters and found that their styles shifted in lockstep with the first letter. After months of analysis, she concluded that even if the Voynich had a single guiding vision, it was the handiwork of five different scribes.
Ylpertnodi 2y ago
>Since then, a fair number of serious researchers have done work on the Manuscript. So far, their conclusions are similarly dull and limited. (Though they do rule out many cool categories of nut theories.) Not limited enough to rule some things out. Kind of "We're just guessing, but their guesses are incorrect. We do know that much".
jhbadger 2y ago
>'Till ~2020, Voynich research was pretty much reserved for nut jobs, and the very occasional academic intent upon career suicide. I wouldn't say that. Probably the most famous Voynich researcher until modern times was William Friedman, who was a famous cryptographer who led the team who cracked PURPLE (Japan's equivalent to Enigma) in WWII. He wasn't viewed as a crackpot but was and is revered in the field of cryptography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Friedman

bee_rider 2y ago

It is sort of interesting that it is a group work. It’s odd that somebody would scribble a whole journal full of random stuff, but of course people in the olden days got bored too. Convincing four other people to scribble with you seems a bit harder, haha.

082349872349872 2y ago
Now that we have GenAI a whole book of random stuff is cheap, but back then it was expensive (and coordinating a group sounds even more expensive!), so we assume it must've had some meaning to someone, and get nerd-sniped into finding a reading. (on the other hand: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1418.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1418.html . It's amusing to see "errata"!)
benterix 2y ago
Check this out: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ (I had no idea this lore exist but got interested why my daughter suddenly started to talk about `scp`, I was wondering is she wants to copy some files between machines...)
singularity2001 2y ago
how do they rule out if these five hands come from the same person with long periods of not working on the script? My handwriting can certainly change when I take a three year break
- DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
  Answered in the article: In certain places, the script was more cramped or more likely to slant as it crossed the page. She tested this observation by picking a letter that didn’t appear often and tracking it across the manuscript’s pages. Its style, she saw, varied among groups of pages but not within those groups. This suggested that the differences—larger or smaller loops, straighter or curvier crossbars, longer or shorter feet—were the product of different scribes rather than of one scribe writing the same letter in different ways. To reduce the possibility of selection bias, Davis examined other letters and found that their styles shifted in lockstep with the first letter. After months of analysis, she concluded that even if the Voynich had a single guiding vision, it was the handiwork of five different scribes.

Ylpertnodi 2y ago

>Since then, a fair number of serious researchers have done work on the Manuscript. So far, their conclusions are similarly dull and limited. (Though they do rule out many cool categories of nut theories.) Not limited enough to rule some things out. Kind of "We're just guessing, but their guesses are incorrect. We do know that much".

jhbadger 2y ago

>'Till ~2020, Voynich research was pretty much reserved for nut jobs, and the very occasional academic intent upon career suicide. I wouldn't say that. Probably the most famous Voynich researcher until modern times was William Friedman, who was a famous cryptographer who led the team who cracked PURPLE (Japan's equivalent to Enigma) in WWII. He wasn't viewed as a crackpot but was and is revered in the field of cryptography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Friedman