Scientific Progress

[Mark Knowles]

There seems to be some debate as to how ideas move forward in research.

It seems to me what is crucial is people forming hypotheses and constructing theories that may not yet be completely proven. And that the competition between these competing theories leads some to be overturned and some integrated together to form a more complete theory.

I think the idea that knowledge is built up gradually layer upon layer is often not the case, though sometimes it happens like that.

It seems to be that hypotheses are formed and asserted by different people and that as evidence builds up, and so some hypotheses are then refuted.

When it comes to Voynich research I would suggest that having multiple theories is actually a good thing even if it may be frustrating at times. Clearly the stronger the evidence to support a given theory the better.

So I would question some peoples ideas as to how Voynich research should proceed.

[bi3mw]

I am rather critical of "ready-made" theories on VMS. In my opinion, there is currently no comprehensive theory that takes all aspects of the VMS sufficiently into account. It is not even certain in which direction a solution could basically go (e.g. code or natural language). The summary of the studies on partial aspects in the various camps still does not allow a final judgment to be made. Basic research is still the order of the day. This is the best way to expect incremental progress.

[Mark Knowles]

I am rather critical of "ready-made" theories on VMS. In my opinion, there is currently no comprehensive theory that takes all aspects of the VMS sufficiently into account. It is not even certain in which direction a solution could basically go (e.g. code or natural language). The summary of the studies on partial aspects in the various camps still does not allow a final judgment to be made. Basic research is still the order of the day. This is the best way to expect incremental progress.

There doesn't need to be a comprehensive theory yet, partial theories can have some value. Uncertainty is part of the process and not something to be afraid of. It doesn't matter if a final judgment can't be made yet.
What do you mean by "Basic Research"?
Progress is not necessarily incremental in science or in other disciplines. Sometimes there are big changes or big advances and sometimes there are periods of stagnation where few advances are made. So I think to view research as slowly building brick upon brick is not an accurate view.

[Koen G]

It has been shown time and time again that forming a premature hypothesis about the VM leads to the curse of confirmation bias. I personally believe in trying to produce small but relatively solid building blocks.

[Mark Knowles]

It has been shown time and time again that forming a premature hypothesis about the VM leads to the curse of confirmation bias. I personally believe in trying to produce small but relatively solid building blocks.

There are two issues here.

1) How do research advances happen in practice? This is a general question. I don't believe Voynich research should be fundamentally different.

2) It is better to have theories even if the theorists, as most are, are prone to confirmation bias. I imagine that theorists in all fields of science have a tendency towards confirmation bias and yet science persists. Determining whether someone has confirmation bias is difficult anyway.

The vision of producing small building blocks seems a nice one, but not one I think that reflects how a significant part of progress is made.

Koen: You, yourself, have produced a variety of theories of various aspects of the Voynich, I believe. By your argument it would seem that most of these are redundant as they don't constitute small building blocks.

[bi3mw]

What do you mean by "Basic Research"?

For me, basic research in the field of text is, for example, the LAAFU theory ( Elmar Vogt ) or, in the field of illustration, the most recent work by Koen et al.

So I think to view research as slowly building brick upon brick is not an accurate view.

Well, the "big hit" is theoretically always possible. But I wouldn't count on it. However, I am also of the opinion that every theory, whether conclusive or not, can open up a new perspective on the VMS.

[Koen G]

Mark: yes, I have done more theory driven work, which is why I can compare. In my experience, the relatively theory-free, solid blocks feel more rewarding, and they are also the ones that get picked up by others more.

[ReneZ]

Stating a theory, and then looking for evidence to support it, is fundamentally wrong.

One has to look for evidence both for and against it, and then weigh.

One also has to listen to others, and weigh in their information.

In my professional life, at the time I was doing my masters, a certain quantity could be measured with an accuracy of about 70 cm, and the goal for the next decade or so was set to 10 cm. I have witnessed the continuous improvements with contributions from universities and scientific centres all across the world, setting up competing models, and by the time I retired, 1 cm could be achieved by many groups. That took about 35 years.

Of course, this was a different environment, where success could be measured rather precisely.
It would have been far more difficult to stick to invalid theories.

But that's still a good guideline for people trying to understand the Voynich MS.

1. Realise what can be demonstrated and what cannot be.

Theories about the meaning of the text can usually be measured to quite a reasonable extent, but many of these theories include opinions that cannot be measured (are unfalsifiable) or include non-sequiturs, occasionally not obvious ones.

2. Be prepared to drop an idea when it's appropriate to do that

3. Realise how much is speculation and how much is based on observation, and be critical about it. And beware those non-sequiturs.

[Mark Knowles]

Stating a theory, and then looking for evidence to support it, is fundamentally wrong.

One has to look for evidence both for and against it, and then weigh.

I haven't argued against this.

[Mark Knowles]

I have witnessed the continuous improvements with contributions from universities and scientific centres all across the world, setting up competing models

I think the importance of "competing models" and competing theories is one which I have been keen to emphasise. This seems to be key to how knowledge and ideas progress. So I am dubious about the notion that we would all be better off without these competing theories.