Evidence, observations, assumptions

[ReneZ]

I would see "Easter scene" as a hypothesis derived from a combination of observations, and some 'intermediate' hypotheses.

One complication is that hypotheses can be very simple, but they can also be the result of a significant amount of reasoning and deduction. In the latter case, the feeling could arise that such hypotheses are 'correct conclusions'. This might be true, but it might also be challenged. This is where a lot of forum discussions take place.

Example: some aspects of the drawing on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. look like some aspects of real-life banana plants.
This is an observation that quite a few people can probably agree with.

Hypothesis: the drawing represents a banana plant drawn from a live specimen.

To come to this hypothesis, one may have actually looked at lots of additional evidence, such as other herbals, accounts of the spreading of knowledge of banana plants etc.
In any case, the hypothesis is clearly distinct from the observation, and there may be people who agree with the observation but not the hypothesis.

Taking the hypothesis as evidence, one may then form the next hypothesis: the Voynich MS was not written in Europe.

Of course, there was no evidence that the MS includes a banana plant, and the easy solution is that both statements are part of a 'grand hypothesis'.