06.28.04
Baby God’s Eye and Barnum statements
Two fine articles on fortean subjects:
- A suggestion that the Voynich manuscript is a hoax created using Cardan grilles. The prime suspect is, of course, Edward Kelley. Kelley is a fine example of posthumous inflation; almost anything inexplicable or under the table is obviously, obviously, down to Kelley. The poor man wouldn’t have had time to do half of what he’s been accused of doing. Nonetheless, I do like the fact that the argument comes from the author’s attempt at an analysis of how explanatory theories in general can be improved, rather than a specific attempt to ’solve’ the Voynich manuscript.
- Rorschach ‘wizards’ as cold readers - a (highly subjective) account of the way that experts in the Rorschach test, a device with little or no clinical evidence to back it up, may have consciously or unconsciously employed cold reading techniques to produce superficially impressive results. If nothing else, this article introduced me to the term Barnum statements.
Mags said,
June 29, 2004 at 12:55 pm
I could have sworn that Voynich theory popped up last year in the FT - or am I retroactively revising my FTs again?
Kelley, I feel, ought to be claimed for Faction Paradox (www.factionparadox.co.uk). Then again, I claim pretty much all Fortean stuff as FP at work (true wierdness being I now know the cryptozoologists I based one FP character on).
Jon said,
June 30, 2004 at 11:07 am
I think the FT article would have been from around 2000. My back issues are all over the shop, so I can’t dig it out easily. Further recent press coverage:
Nature
The Observer
Images from the manuscript
But not here. Just trust me on this.