Scientific Progress

[Mark Knowles]

So while I do agree with you that theory-led research is dangerous, I can't say it's a "guaranteed" recipe for disaster.

At the same time I don't think it's a coincidence that all the best (in my opinion) Voynich research is coming from people who don't have a strong attachment to any theory. 

I think this is a question regarding the Philosophy of Science or maybe the Philosophy of Historical Research. From my acquaintance lots of good research in science or history has been what I think you call theory-led. I would be interested in seeing someone argue against that. I don't see any reason to expect Voynich research to be any different.

I think to extol the achievements of non-theory driven Voynich research is certainly premature. By far the biggest achievement in Voynich research so far has been the carbon dating. All the other achievements have been very modest by comparison.

I think we will be best placed to discuss the merits of theory-led or non-theory-led research with regards to the Voynich when Voynich research is much further progressed.

I think there also needs to be made a distinction between incremental research progress and sudden jumps in progress. I get the impression that some people view Voynich research progress being made by adding one small brick ontop of another at a time until the manuscript is fully understood. However I think that this will not necessarily by the case, but rather there can be sudden breakthroughs and sudden jumps forward in research progress.