Hoaxes (was Re: Voynich research needs)

[Daniel Harms <dmharms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:05 PM 8/25/2000 +0200, you wrote:

>I am pretty sure that most of us have a different
>understanding of what constitutes a hoax. If it dates from
>a more recent time than it appears to, then I consider it
>to be a hoax. But if it dates from 1470 (give or take a
>couple of decades, being generous), when should we call it
>a hoax? 

I wouldn't call it a hoax, necessarily, in either case.  To judge whether
something is a "hoax", we have to have some indication as to what 
motivated its creation.  

If I wrote an account of a Roman general's stay in Spain, and published 
it as fiction, or kept it to myself for my own private amusement, it
would not constitute a hoax.  If I sold it, telling people that it was a
translation of the Roman general's original document, that would be a 
hoax.  But it might be difficult to tell the difference, if that judgement
is based strictly on the document itself.

I think it's useful to determine whether the Voynich is a hoax, but my
point here is that historic inaccuracy does not necessarily point to a hoax,
in the way I understand the term.

Yrs.,


Daniel Harms     dmharms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Internet:  Learn what you know.  Share what you don't.