New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

[tavie]

The idea that those who already think the Voynich proven genuine have already, by doing so, declared it falsifiable.

I know they would (or should) say it is falsifiable, but I was interested in what you would say.  I agree with you that if someone thinks with certainty that the modern forgery theory is false, then they must also agree it is falsifiable.

... It does not matter what you think I would say, because you have already declared the Modern Forgery theory false, and therefore, declared the theory falsifiable...

...It can't be both ways, i.e, declared falsifiable, and at the same time, unfalsifiable, based on anything... let alone, what one imagines I may or may not say in the future. It is one or the other.

Rich, I hadn't declared your theory false.  I would like to have that kind of confidence but I don't.  If I had declared it as false, then as you say, I wouldn't have asked if it was falsifiable.  And I am not expert in the relevant matters in any way that would allow me to declare it false myself.  I don't have Lisa's expertise in paelography and medieval manuscripts; I don't have Rene's in the radio-carbon dating or the historical provenance or the limitations of Voynich's access to the correspondence in question.  All I can do is place a high weight on their expertise whilst not completely forgetting that experts can make mistakes, and following the logic, evidence, and credibility of the discussion as best I can without the specialist knowledge.  And while I don't want the manuscript to be a forgery, I also have an interest in not wasting even more time than I already have on something that is later found out to be a forgery.

I hadn't declared your theory was certainly unfalsifiable either but I have said that when I first asked the question, I was getting that impression from the discussion. And it grew in the next couple of days.  I know technically even an unfalsifiable theory could still be true but in practice it loses a lot of credibility for me, at least when I lack the expertise to judge it on other levels.  So I asked to see if that impression of unfalsifiability was unjustified.  But when many of the responses I've got are on the lines of challenging the rival theory or saying I'm trying to discredit you, rather than confirming consistent conditions for falsifiability, it strengthens rather than corrects that impression.