(02-07-2026, 04:14 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That is a naive view of how science is done. In reality, science usually advances only when a scientist notices some peculiar pattern in some data, invents a theory to explain it, becomes convinced that it is likely to be true, and works hard to find evidence that can convince others of it. That is, conviction usually comes before the proof, not after it.
I wholly agree with most of your post, in particular that usually conviction comes before the proof. Where I don't agree is the methodological part: working hard
only to find evidence to prove one's theory is dangerous and leads to blunders
. One should work hard to prove his theory, of course,
but even harder to try to disprove it: only failing to do it can make one confident his theory is true and ready for peer review. Else he's publishing at his own risk.
(02-07-2026, 08:34 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a big difference between trying to prove a theory is correct because you are convinced it is true, and trying to prove whether a theory is correct because you suspect it might be true.
The former assumes the end result before sufficient evidence and is highly susceptible to confirmation bias. The latter sets out to confirm or debunk their theory, open to a positive or negative result.
Yes, the first kind of scientist will generally seek out evidence that confirms the theory and skip experiments that he suspects would turn out against it. Which, given his conviction, is not wrong: he trusts that, if an experiment were to turn out negative, there would have to be an explanation that preserves the theory. Then doing that experiment would have been a waste of time.
But my point is that science is advanced more often by the the first kind of scientist than by the second kind. The latter will often pass on the theory because doing the necessary experiments (including those that are likely to refute it) it would require a lot of work. And he would probably give up after the first test that says "probably not" -- instead of looking for an explanation that would excuse that result, or just filing it into the "think later" folder and keep looking for the proof.
Thus the risk of confirmation bias is real, but it is just part of the "occupational hazards" of doing science.
All the best, --stolfi
Following up on a hunch, or an intuition, is not the same as "being convinced" of something.
Following up on a hunch or intuition may not seem 'scientific', as it is often not the result of deduction.
However, the way in which it is being followed up can (and should) be scientific/deductive/whatever one might call it.
Being convinced includes blocking off alternatives, which is clearly not correct.
(02-07-2026, 08:34 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a big difference between trying to prove a theory is correct because you are convinced it is true, and trying to prove whether a theory is correct because you suspect it might be true.
Well said.
(03-07-2026, 08:35 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But my point is that science is advanced more often by the the first kind of scientist than by the second kind. The latter will often pass on the theory because doing the necessary experiments (including those that are likely to refute it) it would require a lot of work. And he would probably give up after the first test that says "probably not" -- instead of looking for an explanation that would excuse that result, or just filing it into the "think later" folder and keep looking for the proof.
You must not be up to date with dark matter and cosmology.. looking for explanations to excuse results has basically become the entire field of research
But again I don't agree. Firstly about the 2nd kind of scientist having seemingly no motivation or drive. Why do you assume that someone would give up after one test?
Secondly, I would argue the vast majority of breakthroughs and progress do not come from scientists who are convinced of their hunch, but rather scientists that run into anomalies while testing the status quo who then theorise why the anomaly arose. Many other breakthroughs come from carrying out the tests that are formulated as ways of proving/disproving existing theories. And on the whole, both proving and disproving a theory is seen as a step in the right direction. I think most physicists would love to be able to disprove Einstein's theories somehow, and many people have tried -and failed- to do so. But they did not "fail", they provided valuable data and confimation of the leading theories.
So I just don't see this world of scientists running around trying to convince others of their theories in the way you describe, and I would say the 2nd type of scientist represents the majority of modern scientific progress (post 1900AD or so).
(02-07-2026, 06:22 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]
Where is the leap from an idea to a theory?
It’s becoming increasingly common for people to simply throw out ideas here, and for us to be expected to turn them into a theory.
That’s exactly what gets on my nerves.
Is there really a difference between an idea and a (small) theory? A question for philosophers.
At all, it is more enervating to see „theories“ emerge and run dry, when their owners have used up the very last ideas to prove it anyhow…
Thank you, you’ve taken the words right out of my mouth.
The word "theory" has several meanings, which are often confused or even abused.
A theory in the scientific sense uses observations to explain a phenomenon. New data and insights may alter the theory.
A theory in the "theorist" sense looks for ways to use or misuse any data that supports the theory. Unsuitable data is ignored.
An idea can be colloquially called a theory as well. "I have a theory that the neighbors' dog is the one eating our flowers." It's not a scientific theory, nor a bonkers "flat earth" style theory. You just suspect the dog, but won't stick to that idea once video footage shows it was the mailman.
So those are three possible meanings of "theory". A malleable scientific explanation, a conviction that misinterprets data and ignores evidence to the contrary, and an idea.
It is absolutely clear that in the context of Voynich research, the term is used in the second sense. A Voynich theorist is someone who has almost made their theory part of their identity, a matter of pride, a territory to defend at all cost.
If you were to say "I have a theory that I'd like to test", then fine, yes, that is the same as an idea. But that's not what we're talking about in the context of Voynich research.
So how does that work?
I get up in the morning and have the idea of having a barbecue.
It’s only when I start thinking about what I actually need – a barbecue, charcoal, drinks, sausages… and so on – that it becomes a plan.
If I don’t do anything about it, it remains just an idea.
Doesn’t the plan then need to be put into practice?
Barbecuing in theory.
The desire grows, but the hunger remains.
Based on my own experience, I would say that, fortunately, Voynich research often begins with an open-ended question rather than a theory. Then, researchers look for the appropriate methods to answer the question at hand. The result can go either way and may even raise new questions. To stick with the example of the neighbor’s dog, one would formulate a question without any preconceived speculation (“Who is eating my flowers?”). Video surveillance (the method) then provides a result (it was the mailman) . So it’s not at all necessary to suspect the dog (theory/idea) in order to take action. A “theorist” would simply ignore the video camera’s result and instead write a detailed treatise about dogs eating flowers and the fact that the neighbor, after all, has a dog. “It was the dog” ultimately becomes the axiom upon which every argument is based. The fact that, at a certain point, one ought to know better no longer matters. This is precisely why ready-made Voynich theories are often very tiresome.