(09-06-2024, 11:58 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.many of these theories include opinions that cannot be measured (are unfalsifiable)
It would be interesting to have examples of unfalsifiable opinions. Certainly some theories may be difficult to falsify, but that is surely quite different from being unfalsifiable.
There is a good chance that we will never be able to read the VM text.
- if we cannot find the way to break the code
- if the system used to encode is was imperfect, or like a one-way cipher
- if it has no semantic meaning
- ...
In any of those scenarios, most theories will be unfalsifiable. Without the solution to the text, it is much easier to think of theories that
cannot be falsified than those that can.
(10-06-2024, 04:21 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a good chance that we will never be able to read the VM text.
- if we cannot find the way to break the code
- if the system used to encode is was imperfect, or like a one-way cipher
- if it has no semantic meaning
- ...
In any of those scenarios, most theories will be unfalsifiable. Without the solution to the text, it is much easier to think of theories that cannot be falsified than those that can.
I suppose I am more optimistic that the text will be broken even if the system used to encode it was imperfect and I doubt it has no semantic meaning.
However even if none of those things are the case I still there is a lot of scope for falsifying theories. I think there is huge scope for finding documents in archives or elsewhere as yet unknown to the Voynich community, but very relevant to the Voynich manuscript. With time more and more documents will become known to Voynich researchers. And in the hopeful scenario that human civilisation does not come to an end all relevant surviving documents will at some time be identified.
(10-06-2024, 04:21 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a good chance that we will never be able to read the VM text.
- if we cannot find the way to break the code
- if the system used to encode is was imperfect, or like a one-way cipher
- if it has no semantic meaning
- ...
In any of those scenarios, most theories will be unfalsifiable. Without the solution to the text, it is much easier to think of theories that cannot be falsified than those that can.
Can you give examples of unfalsifiable theories?
It is also worth noting that Rene said that there are unfalsifiable theories and you are saying that there are theories which might turn out to be unfalsifiable.
Torsten's theory. Pelling's Averlino theory. Stephen Bax' theory. The Turkish theory. My theory that the rosettes contain heavenly Jerusalem. Your theory about the rosettes. Anyone else's theory about the rosettes. Good luck falsifying any of those in a convincing way. And even if you do, I'm sure goalposts will be moved and arguments will be made to make it unfalsified again.
(12-06-2024, 07:02 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Torsten's theory. Pelling's Averlino theory. Stephen Bax' theory. The Turkish theory. My theory that the rosettes contain heavenly Jerusalem. Your theory about the rosettes. Anyone else's theory about the rosettes. Good luck falsifying any of those in a convincing way.
I don't think most of those theories can be said to be unfalsifiable. The one that comes closest to that is Torsten's theory is the text isn’t deciphered. It is certainly true that they haven't been falsified yet and in some cases it may be very difficult to falsify them, but that is quite difficult from being unfalsifiable.
(12-06-2024, 07:02 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And even if you do, I'm sure goalposts will be moved and arguments will be made to make it unfalsified again.
I think this is undue cynicism. Lots of theories and ideas about the Voynich are difficult to falsify or haven't yet been falsified. In fact within that frame of thinking one could argue that most theories of the manuscript are unfalsifiable. You have suggested a connection between the various Zodiac drawings and Strasbourg manuscript workshops. Is that an unfalsifiable theory? As far as I know it hasn't been falsified and if it is false I would think it would be quite difficult to falsify.
The reason that so much remains unknown about the Voynich is that Voynich research is still in its infancy.
I wouldn't call the Strasbourg connections "theories" though, since I merely posit some connection on the family tree, and the resemblances were strong enough to gain acceptance. If I'd insist that Diebold Lauber himself created the VM, it would become a theory, and my claims would be greater than what the evidence allows. All I would say now is that there is a connection between these drawings, and that it may be possible to find missing links or other examples that complete the picture.
Note that when I say most theories are unfalsifiable, that is as long as the MS is not solved of course. If we ever reach a sufficient solution, a lot will be falsified, including possibly Torsten's. (Unless he's right, of course).
Quote:many of these theories include opinions that cannot be measured (are unfalsifiable)
I was specifically referring to opinions, and those that cannot be measured. Referring to the wiki page about the scientific method, they do not allow to define experiments from which we learn more about them.
Examples: anything related to the
intention of the author(s) / scribe(s) / artist(s).
There are plenty of things that we will only be able to verify once the MS has been translated.
In that sense they would seem to be falsifiable, but not in any useful way. They would not lead to more knowledge before the whole thing is solved.
Questions whether or not person X had anything to do with the MS can be considered falsifiable, even though chances may be slim.
Examples: Averlino, someone in the Barbavara family, or indeed Widemann.
This is where research of documents comes in - libraries, archives.
The case of Widemann (who was of course always envisaged as an early owner, never a creator), is different because his name came from an archival document in the first place, and over time more and more items have been found. Very much research that is still in progress, and the conjecture of his involvement could be broadened to include additional names: Geizkofler, Popp, Rauwolf.
Whether one finds evidence in an archive is only know after the search, regardless how confident one may feel beforehand about the success of the seach.
(13-06-2024, 02:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:many of these theories include opinions that cannot be measured (are unfalsifiable)
I was specifically referring to opinions, and those that cannot be measured. Referring to the wiki page about the scientific method, they do not allow to define experiments from which we learn more about them.
Examples: anything related to the intention of the author(s) / scribe(s) / artist(s).
One could in the future discover a document written by the author stating what their intention was or there might be more indirect evidence as to their intention. So this isn't necessarily unfalsifiable, though when all the evidence is assembled we may only be left with speculation as to their intention.