[split] On the validation of Theories

[Torsten]

David, you didn't understand my point. I just say that we should validate hypotheses for the Voynich manuscript by looking if they can describe and explain observed phenomena and if they lead to empirically testable and falsifiable predictions. With other words we should handle it like any other hypotheses.

For instance the Voynich faked it hypotheses doesn't make any falsifiable predictions and doesn't help us to explain any observed phenomena which are not explainable otherwise. Therefore such a hypotheses is just irrelevant.

That you reject all hypotheses and theories since someone will always take the counter-position is exactly the opposite of what you said in your last post. A position that all hypotheses are alike since no progress is ever possible also doesn't lead to any falsifiable predictions and is therefore irrelevant.

The Voynich manuscript is full of patterns and the statistical analysis reveals almost perfect results. This means the variables are not at all large, on the contrary it means that the Voynich manuscript is almost perfect example of its kind and that the patterns are very well determined. It is simply a mistake to assume that since some people didn't understand a pattern it must be impossible to understand this pattern. In the same way it is also not necessary that the pattern must contain numerous variables.