Scientific Progress

[Torsten]

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.

The problem is that everyone in the Voynich community has their own assumptions about the manuscript. So, how can you be sure that your assumptions about the Voynich manuscript are correct? Anyway, you shouldn't argue that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood [see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.].

The big problem here is that compatible does not mean correct (at all!).

How can a theory be proved or disproved, if not by checking if the theory aligns with the evidence?