19-08-2017, 12:17 PM
Marco and Koen, I want to thank you both for taking the time to discuss my remark about the Combinatorial Method. Obviously there are limitations on its use, at least for the individual researcher. Though I hope that the general idea, of using and questioning the artefact in order to evolve an explanation, is acceptable. Outside information might prove very useful, but we must have an absolute certainty about its appropriateness before using it.
Theories which use outside information will eventually prove worthless if the wrong information is brought in—that's the long and short of it. Theories which are built up by comparing and contrasting different parts of the manuscript will always have some worth, however little.
This is true of imagery and text. For example, I know that Koen has done research comparing the nymphs to one another, and the findings will always be valid. Yet comparing the nymphs to those in other manuscripts is always fraught because we can never be sure (or, at least, it takes huge proof) that the illustrator ever saw such and such a drawing.
Theories which use outside information will eventually prove worthless if the wrong information is brought in—that's the long and short of it. Theories which are built up by comparing and contrasting different parts of the manuscript will always have some worth, however little.
This is true of imagery and text. For example, I know that Koen has done research comparing the nymphs to one another, and the findings will always be valid. Yet comparing the nymphs to those in other manuscripts is always fraught because we can never be sure (or, at least, it takes huge proof) that the illustrator ever saw such and such a drawing.


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)