Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive 3

Verification of a Solution

Shannon's work has shown that, if finding the correct solution is possible, it is imperatively needed to verify it. There are two ways to do it : a)-by applying the grid to another text, written in the same script b)- by checking up that all the consequences of the proposed solution are verified by the facts.

The first method cannot be applied in the case of the Phaistos Disk, which remains an hapax for the time being. So, only the second method is valid.

The need of a verification has been generally neglected by those who have proposed a solution to the Phaistos Disk enigma. The only kind of "verification" most of them have done is just saying :"See how my decipherment is nice!", without caring that some established facts were showing that their decipherment was highly improbable or even false. (For instance, all the "decipherments" using a center-to-exterior direction of reading are going against the epigraphical facts). Others have tried to minimize the contradictions brought by some of the facts, explaining the thing by supposed exceptions to the rule. This, obviously, cannot be called a verification. Only two or three of the would-be-decipherers have tried to seriously verify their solution. The champion in this matter is J.Faucounau, the discoverer of the "Proto-Ionic Solution", with more than 30 consequences of his decipherment verified by facts (against 1 or 2 in the other proposed solutions). This is why this solution has convinced many people (including myself), but of course not those who have never seriously examined the details of such a verification. (User 80.90.57.154 Dec.14, 2005)

First. You are the only one knowing what you mean with "by all means possible" or "and other facts". Secondly, what you do is validation not verification. For verification new knowledge from new findings, events etc. is necessary. Without such a new fact all you can do is validation. Kadmos 17:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1)-"All means possible" means "all the consequences which can be verified by facts". 2)- I gave the list of the "other facts" leading to the conclusion that the scribe was composing his text, but you suppressed them yourself !!! 3)- Please give a reference saying that "validation" is not "verification" (or reciprocally). BTW, would the discovery of a Greek people in the Aegean, during the Early Bronze Age, be "a new event" for you ? (User 80.90.57.154, 18.10, Dec. 14,2005)

1) There are not enough known facts about the Early Bronze Age. 2) Keep it simple. The argument is strong enough. Saying that there are other facts shows that you are not convinced. 3) Fine that you admit that validation and verification is the same for you. BTW) No. Kadmos 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1)- This is your opinion. 2)-To make it simple is to suppress arguments, and, therefore, giving an opportunity to readers to be sceptic. It's necessary to find an acceptable compromise between these contradictory aims 3)- I don't see where is the problem ! (User 80.90.57.154]], 19.30, Dec.14, 2005).

1) No. You say it yourself: "which can be verified" not "all the consequences must be verified". Sometimes it is not enough to do only the things you can. 2) Naturally there are "marks of resuming in the tracing and in the printing". It's not possible to do everything at the same time. 3) Validation only means that it is not possible to see an error. It's the same as to say: "See how my decipherment is nice!". But this is not enough. Kadmos 20:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1)- By "which can be verified" , I mean that it is not always possible to verify a consequence. It doesn't change the fact that if all the consequences which could be verified are OK, and if they are decisive enough, the verification is valid. The problem is that one verification may be less decisive than applying the grid to another text. This is why I didn't insist upon stating that the "Proto-Ionic Solution" is definitely the good one. Personally, I find several of the corresponding verifications as decisive. But it may not be the opinion of others... 2)- Of course, it's not possible to do everything at the same time ! But the epigraphical facts showing that the scribe has stopped his work for a while, then has resumed it, are evidence. 3)- NO ! Validation/verification means that everything fits, not just that an error cannot be proved !.. For instance, I cannot prove that the Disk is not a calendar. But nothing fits with this hypothesis, neither the number of signs, nor the indication of seasons, nor the duration of the weeks, etc. (User 80.90.57.154, 21.00 Dec 14, 2005)

1) Fine that you admit that it is not always possible to verify a consequence. So it is not possible to say: "it is necessary to verify this solution by all means possible to be sure". To be sure a decisive proof like a second text is necessary. 2) He was using stamps. Maybe he has stopped because he was stamping more then one disc. This is indeed a weak argumentation. 3) It is still not enough to be sure about it. Kadmos 08:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

1)-And why should it not be possible to write "by all the means possible" ? Where is the contradiction ? Why amongst these all means possible, would not some of them (not only one!) to be decisive ? 2)- Stamping More than one disc at the same time ???Ridiculous !.. The best explanation is that, after writing a sentence, he was stopping a short while to think about the next one, and/or to evaluate the space left. This is called composing. 3)-Verifying the consequences of a theory is the scientific way to consider it as true. Why would you change this rule for the decipherment of the Phaistos Disk ??? (User 80.90.57.154 Dec. 15, 2005)

1) It is obviously not possible to write "to be sure" if it is not always possible to be sure this way. 2) Your best explanation is only a weak opinion. It is necessary to be sure about it! BTW: How long is a while? Maybe he was searching a stamp. Or he was stamping a part before drawing the next part of the spiral. 3) Because the sequence is about Shannons unicity distance concerning the deciphering of a script and not about verifying a theory. That you always deny the obvious difference between "it can be" and "it must be" doesnt change the fact that this difference exist. Kadmos 10:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

1)-Wrong ! Cf the (pretty stupid) example I gave of a would-be-decipherer translating a message as "Attack tomorrow". One doesn't need to apply the grid to a second message ! Just waiting until tomorrow will prove whether this reading is correct or not !.. More seriously : Have a look at the confirmations presented in favour of the Proto-Ionic Solution : it seems difficult to say that they are not decisive, for instance the verifications concerning the existence of the Proto-Ionians resulting from the decipherment. The same cannot be said with other decipherments : for instance, one consequence of St. Fischer's decipherment is that Carians would have destroyed the Creto-Mycenaean Culture. There is no confirmation of any kind of that... 2)- It is maybe a weak argument, but it is nevertheless one of the arguments. Why suppressing it? 3)- I don't deny this difference. On the contrary !.. It's you who don't understand the meaning of the word to verify !!! BTW, there is no verb to proof in English !.. (80.90.57.154, 12.10, Dec. 15, 2005).

1) The example is obviuosly about a proof with a new event/new information. 2) Because there is obviously no need for a weak argument if there is already a strong argument. 3) What is wrong with "it is necessary to prove this solution"? Kadmos 12:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

1)- So what ? Is not, for instance, the discovery of the existence, in the Aegean area during the Early Bronze Age, of Proto-Ionic speakers a new information ? Or would not be such the proof that Carians have destroyed the Creto-Mycenaean Culture ?.. 2)- Well, this is a point of view... Not necessarily so much a good one... But I will not fight for that (See my last redaction). 3) It's OK with me. From my Webster dictionary, both verbs have the same meaning !.. (User80.90.57.154 14.15, Dec. 15, 2005).

1) No. The existence of the enemy is not a proof for your example with the attack! 2) What is wrong with the fact that the corrections were done on the spot? 3) "Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same meaning Different words that are similar in meaning usually differ for a reason because etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage, etc. make them unique." quoted from Synonym Kadmos 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

1)-Amusing ! This is the negation of the Scientific Method concerning the verification of a theory, i.e. the method of confirming it by verifying its consequences. In the case of my example, the fact that the predicted attack occurred is reasonably enough to be the proof of the decipherment. One may, of course, invoke a coïncidence. Like one may "refute" all the arguments showing that the Earth is a sphere : That you see first the mast of a ship ? Objection : it is a possible optical phenomenon -- That one may make a round trip around the Earth ? Objection : The same may happen with a cylinder -- That there are photographies of Earth taken from the Moon ? Objection : They may be fakes -- etc. With such an attitude, even applying the grid to another text is no more a proof, because one may suggest it is a surprising coïncidence !.. Science is based upon probability : when the chance of a coïncidence is almost zero, then there is proof. 2)- Citing only the corrections is reducing several arguments to a single one. Where is the advantage of that ? Reducing the text ? My redaction is shorter than yours !!! 3)- No comment. (User80.90.57.154 16.30, Dec.15, 2005)