25-11-2024, 08:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 25-11-2024, 09:03 AM by Mark Knowles.)
(22-11-2024, 04:58 PM)Koen G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[What I'm saying is that accounting for all the details doesn't necessarily make a theory any better. If memory serves, Michelle and Keagan account for quite a number of details for the rosettes page, but they think it's a uterus. I'm sure that if they allowed themselves a bit more leeway and studied more gynecological texts, they could eventually link everything on the page to things that have been written in the Middle Ages about the female reproductive system. If eventually they take in more details than you do, does that make them the winner? There surely have to be other criteria.
I haven't been able to locate a free copy of their theory though I have requested one on ResearchGate. However as far as I am concerned the more detailed they can make their theory the better. The more detailed it is, the more scope for analysis and critique. If they find that they are unable to explain many of the details then it could be a sign that there are problems with the theory.