24-03-2017, 01:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 24-03-2017, 01:51 PM by Diane.
Edit Reason: add
)
Davisch
I see your point.
Mine was that what is being called "data collection" as if it were raw data from which (one day) to form a theory, is actually heavily biased by the existing theories which are informing the search-parameters. The "data collection" is thus just a form of theory-building after all. What can we do about it?
Two important principles, I think are:-
.
1. (from a post to appear soon..) Appearance but no substance to the 'matches'
![[Image: like-ness.jpg]](https://voynichimagery.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/like-ness.jpg)
2. (from post published today) You can produce whatever 'match' you want by pairing these off. One is pure form; one is common substance; one is common source...
How do we stop wasting time trying to justify old fictions after the fact?
![[Image: voynich-world-humour.jpg]](https://voynichimagery.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/voynich-world-humour.jpg)
I see your point.
Mine was that what is being called "data collection" as if it were raw data from which (one day) to form a theory, is actually heavily biased by the existing theories which are informing the search-parameters. The "data collection" is thus just a form of theory-building after all. What can we do about it?
Two important principles, I think are:-
- Looking like isn't the same as being like and
- Being like doesn't necessarily mean looking like.
.
1. (from a post to appear soon..) Appearance but no substance to the 'matches'
2. (from post published today) You can produce whatever 'match' you want by pairing these off. One is pure form; one is common substance; one is common source...
How do we stop wasting time trying to justify old fictions after the fact?