So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution” | Hacker News Reader

So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”

arstechnica.com

127 pointsblinskey31 comments

Given 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

Who is the author of that incredible analysis? I can't find anything about Volder Z/Derek Vogt. Is it perhaps a pseudonym? Derek Bickerton[1] + Hans Vogt[2]?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vogt_(linguist)

His work is building on the observations of commentators Stephen Bax's blog.

https://stephenbax.net/

This latest video is very interesting, and it seems the translation is progressing

Very nice work

> 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.

"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."

Ouch.

Ugh, this, the Somerton Man cipher as the Zodiac cipher are my top three to see cracked. Maybe someday...

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.

I'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!

Ars is only as good as its authors - every time i am particularly impressed or displeased with an article, i check the author. Some patterns emerge.

Cyrus Farivar is one of the worst.

He's not called "Cyrus the Virus" for nothing. (Take that as good or bad depending on which side of the fence you stand.)

There's a big pattern at work if you look at the author involved in both articles. I've basically stopped reading anything by Annalee Newitz as she has basically had a run of 5 or 6 articles at this point that use hyperbolic language and are usually complete incorrect. The author occasionally posts a weasel-word apology or an "update" to the article that is a 180 from the strong claims she made, without explicitly stating she was dead wrong or, apparently, learning anything from it.

You can basically ignore anything she writes at this point as being in the "Buzzfeed" section of Ars, and hope that the rest of the site continues to do a decent job. Peter Bright seems alright.

Yeah, it's a bit disappointing, especially since I liked her writing at io9. I wonder how much pressure writers get to write more sensationalist pieces.

lord help you if you bring up her consistently poorly written and deeply editorialized articles in the comments

In particular they seem to have let their standards slip in regards to headlines. For example, the title of their first article about Gibbs' findings was "The mysterious Voynich manuscript has finally been decoded". That makes it sound as if the matter is settled, when it is decidedly not.

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

Modern media^Wworld is all about having it both ways. They anger you, then beg for understanding.

> 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!

Can I gloat now?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187695

I'd suggest you don't. Gibbs' attempt at deciphering the Voynich manuscript wasn't bad simply on the account of it's premises, but because it was something lazily slapped together without much further thought.

But a "logographic" approach to deciphering the manuscript might not be off the table.

Fair enough, then I won't. :-)

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. 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.

>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...

"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.

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.

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).

I figured someone would post this take. I was right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com