Scientific Progress

[Koen G]

I completely agree, though this part is where it gets tricky:

There's nothing wrong with having theories, especially if you use them as a starting point to answer questions about the MS. The problem is when you start ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your theory.

Can you really have a theory and then still judge evidence in a neutral way? The problem with starting out with a theory is that then all evidence will be weighed in the light of that theory. And that is how we get confirmation bias loops, and before you know it, people have become completely convinced by things that seem bizarre to anyone who did not experience this accumulation of "evidence" through confirmation bias.

Having experienced this myself, I can say that starting out from a theory is a guaranteed recipe for disaster. Once the theory has formed, the chances of objective assessment of evidence become very slim. I have noticed that experienced Voynich researchers often add some caveats to the more "adventurous" ideas they mention, probably as a way to keep themselves and/or others from theory building.