The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

I think your dedication to the theory that it is an authentic 15th century creation

@asteckley, I am sorry, but you have lost me definitely now.

To be quite blunt:

1) The 15th century creation of the Voynich MS is not a theory. That line is just rhetoric by Rich. It is the default, and any alternative needs solid evidence.

2) I am not dedicated to any theory. I have asked the question myself, and I follow the evidence.

Well in a way this is correct that the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal theory is considered by many "the default", but my point is that this is not a good thing in any way, and should not, and does not, deserve to be projected or accepted as such. It is clearly the current paradigm, but my point is that by projecting it as such is needs and uses unscientific methods, and ignores realities about it:

1) It is unfounded, as it has poor supporting evidence and many flaws
2) Can only exist by ignoring, dismissing under weak premises a great deal of evidence against it
3) Needs to use fallacious arguments to support it, among them, but not limited to, "Argument by Authority" (except when an "authority" counters it), Cherry Picking, Straw Man arguments, misstatement of alternate views, demonization of alternate views ("Flat Earth", "rhetoric", etc.), limiting the narrative to exclude alternate views, publishing incorrect information dismissing alternate views (Stringer Voynich Book's introduction, "Forgery has been disproven", when it is anything but, "the ink is perfect", etc.)
4) Controlling and limiting the availability to data and images, only releasing favorable opinions of that data (the C14 results, for over ten years, as an example)

Point(s) being, if it is considered by you or anyone as "the default" theory, it may be, but should not be, it does not deserve that label. As I often do, I recommend "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn describes and explains why paradigms form, how they are defended, why they often exist when they don't really "deserve" to exist, how they deal with challenges... and not always in a scientific way, but often using fallacies as I have listed above. The "fits and starts" progression of science is not linear, it forms paradigms which are created, defended, challenged, and if the challenge fails, it continues. If the challenge succeeds, it falls, and a "New Paradigm" is created.

Which is all valid, it is the way this works in science. I and others challenge the paradigm, and elements of it, and those who are within the paradigm defend it. To attempt to class this paradigm as "the default" is just another method of defence, it is what helps paradigms react to challenges, creating the false impression that there is some especial reason it SHOULD be the default, when on critical analysis, there really is no scientific reason that should be so.

It should be seen as the theory/hypothesis/suggestion, W/E, that it really is, so that people will realize they are free to really investigate and discuss it. That would be a more productive process, IMO, and one that I follow, in practice.