Lament from the Sea, New Method! f2r

[-JKP-]

Koen, JKP,

Please don't think this is antagonist question - I think it's a genuinely interesting academic question that is worth talking about and if you guys agree, I'll start a new thread for it.

JKP said something I immediately agreed with - then thought it over and realised that it implies what might be a circular argument. I'd like the chance to talk it over.  It's this:

It's theory-building, not data collection. There's a big difference.

The question that arose was: if data-collection follows the expression of some aim, then what informs that aim would appear to be a belief in things we already suppose -  believe enough to let it define the parameters of the search - while still not having enough evidence to support?  Isn't data collection then just a form of theory-building? 

I suppose some data is value-neutral - like counting details as Koen's recent posts do - but I can't see that there are many forms of data-collection not affected by presumptions and expectations... like supposing the calendar an astrological-use zodiac, then collecting images of astrological charts and astrologers' zodiacs without first stopping to ask 'for what use  was this series of images, inscribed with month-names, intended? Why doesn't it present as a standard series of the Greco-Roman constellations..?'  What other possibilities are there?

So how is data-collection not a function of theory-building.. in your opinion?  I think the question's a fundamental issue..new thread?

Of course they are related, but having the horse pull the cart is better than putting the cart before the horse. Some common sense has to be applied.

If you try to fly a plane without ever having learned how to do it (build a theory before you have enough information to formulate one that is based on the data), you're not going to go in the right direction or make the right decisions.



Stellar started making assumptions without first getting a basic understanding of his tools and he isn't just studying the VMS, he's claiming he decoded it and selling books based on that assertion.

The fact that he used a youtube video on a simple numeric substitution code to justify his gematria-based "decipherment" (there is no relationship between them at all) shows a gap in his understanding of ciphers, as well, otherwise he would never have posted that video.