09-06-2024, 06:57 PM
There seems to be some debate as to how ideas move forward in research.
It seems to me what is crucial is people forming hypotheses and constructing theories that may not yet be completely proven. And that the competition between these competing theories leads some to be overturned and some integrated together to form a more complete theory.
I think the idea that knowledge is built up gradually layer upon layer is often not the case, though sometimes it happens like that.
It seems to be that hypotheses are formed and asserted by different people and that as evidence builds up, and so some hypotheses are then refuted.
When it comes to Voynich research I would suggest that having multiple theories is actually a good thing even if it may be frustrating at times. Clearly the stronger the evidence to support a given theory the better.
So I would question some peoples ideas as to how Voynich research should proceed.
It seems to me what is crucial is people forming hypotheses and constructing theories that may not yet be completely proven. And that the competition between these competing theories leads some to be overturned and some integrated together to form a more complete theory.
I think the idea that knowledge is built up gradually layer upon layer is often not the case, though sometimes it happens like that.
It seems to be that hypotheses are formed and asserted by different people and that as evidence builds up, and so some hypotheses are then refuted.
When it comes to Voynich research I would suggest that having multiple theories is actually a good thing even if it may be frustrating at times. Clearly the stronger the evidence to support a given theory the better.
So I would question some peoples ideas as to how Voynich research should proceed.