Thread for all discussion about "genuine/meaningless/fake" etc

[ReneZ]

point out that you cannot be skeptical of an object, but only of a theory about the object. Now that might sound like an abuse of semantics, but bear with me please: First of all, "genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is a theory like any other.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, when I wrote

... being skeptical. Not about the MS but ...

I was just referring to the meaning provided by @Renegadehealer:

VMs skeptic {noun}: somebody who questions an assumption that the VMs is what it appears to be

This basically suggests a subdivision between people between people who are, and people who aren't.
However, I prefer to think of a human trait, which can apply more to some things and less to others. So I am skeptical about theories, hypotheses, opinions that are not strongly, or even barely, based on facts or clear observations.

Now for me:

"genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is a theory like any other.

is just rhetoric.
There are no "theories like any other". There are solid theories, i.e. based on solid information, there are those based on shaky information and there are those based on no information at all.

Just saying that one has a theory, and thereby it is as good as any other, doesn't work.

In this specific case, "genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is several things combined:
- genuine
- 15th century European
- cipher
- herbal
and this combination is certainly a theory, not more.
"Herbal" really only describes part of the book so it is probably the weakest part.

Now "genuine" isn't part of the earlier list of definitions. It could be the opposite of several different terms in the list. In the frame of the present thread, it would fit with the question of "meaningfulness". In that case it is also doubtful and unproven.