The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

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.

This argument by Rich misuses or misunderstands the various definitions of the word "theory". It is straight from the pseudoscientist's playbook. "Evolution is just a theory!"

From Wikipedia:

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science [...] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.

Darwin's theory of evolution is the first kind. Since its inception, it has been changed, improved, added to... as is expected in the natural sciences.
Rich's theory is of the second type, "something that is unproven or speculative".

Assuming that something is an authentic version of itself is not a theory of any kind.

Hi Koen: It is a form of argument to use semantics in order to dismiss alternate, challenging ideas, and in this case it is often done. Yes, of course there are many different ways to describe our alternate ideas, based on many contexts, such as whether we are referring to an overall concept using varying levels and strengths of evidence, or looking at supporting or opposing views, or looking purely at speculative ideas about both, and on and on.

Any claim can therefore be dismissed or accepted by using semantics. It has been used for the issue of theory/hypothesis/idea/suggestion/speculation/fact and so on, very often, as you have done here. It has been used to dismiss forgery arguments by alternating accepting or dismissing them based on the technical definitions and distinctions between fake/forgery/hoax/parody/replica/homage, it was used several times to charge my use of "belief" meant that my ideas were religious and not scientific, and on and on and on.

But the thing is, by now we all very well know exactly what we are each claiming, and why. So it is a practical convenience in this, and all human discourse, to use terms mutually understandable to all, because language would literally grind to a halt if each and every time one had to carefully explain what definition they meant by the word they used, and then, use alternate, but similar language to then "properly" describe the next statement, and so and so forth.

The terms "theory" and "fake" and "genuine" perfectly describe what we all know to be true about each other's "ideas", and using a microscope to dissect the precise meaning of each only stalls and confuses that understanding, I think.