Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

[Mark Knowles]

It is not so easy *not* to have a theory

It actually means to have rejected one's theory (or theories) because they turned out not to be tenable.

It is the easiest thing in the world *not* to have a theory. I know very many people who have no theory whatsoever about the Voynich manuscript.

Having a theory does *not* mean that one hasn't arrived at that theory by rejecting theories that do not appear tenable.

Having a theory can mean saying this is my theory, but it could be wrong, but presenting a possibility which could inspire others and marks an exploration of the solution space and another possible line of enquiry.

Not presenting a theory could be seen as cowardess, allowing one to criticise the ideas of others without risking any criticism of one's own ideas, so appearing to display intellectual superiority whilst really showing intellectual weakness.

Not having a theory is not an achievement or a sign of wisdom, it is merely not having a theory. So, for example, saying that one has studied the Voynich for more than 20 years and produced no theory is not an indication or brilliance, but rather one of failure.