Voynich decoded completely

[ReneZ]

@DONJCH - nothing wrong with theory. It's when the theorist presents their hypothesis as a fully formed plan, and refuse to test the theory, that people get ignored.

I couldn't agree more!

It happens too often (and the present discussion is a good example) that theories become a conviction.


They need to be tested. Where is the test that this proposed method is correct?
Where is the search for evidence?

In the many discussions I have had with several people in the same situation (i.e. being convinced of their theory)
the only 'evidence' that has ever been presented was that the resulting text was sufficient evidence that
the theory was correct. This is always highly subjective.

Many people don't even use the word 'theory'. They jump straight to 'solution'.

The worst case (also not rare) is when a theory is used to decide which evidence is reliable, and which is not.
The theory is used as the benchmark.
This is completely the opposite of what one should do:
the evidence is the benchmark for the theory.

Certainly, some evidence may be less reliable, but that should be decided on the basis of independent information. "Ad hominem" arguments may be completely valid in such cases.

I have a theory about who sold the MS to Rudolf. I've had it since 2012. Evidence supporting it exists, and even though it has increased significantly in the last year or so, it is still not sufficient to my liking. So, still searching and not writing about it just yet. (Sorry for off-topic)