The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

It is a typical and well-documented phenomenon in psychology that the more people have to defend their beliefs, the more convinced they become of them...

Well, naturally! It is a phenomenon that hardly needs documenting. When an idea elicits continual criticism without revealing an actual flaw, and it becomes apparent by the repetition that no new argument against the idea is being found, then it raise one's confidence that the idea has merit.  (A more interesting phenomenon is how people react to any evidence that threatens their beliefs. )

I agree, asteckly, and that is a point I left out of my rebuttal. But it is true that, in past cases, valid points were made in rebuttal to my differing and changing theories, ones that I listened to. They, along with my own research, caused me to change my mind on many things.

But as I moved into Modern Forgery, this stopped happening. I don't personally think any good arguments against the points in my hypothesis (well some "good" points, which I have admitted, and do not ignore, but are working on) have arisen, for one; and also, as I critically examined the given evidence for genuine, likewise, I was unconvinced of its value. So, yes, I am... temporarily or permanently, I don't know yet... stalled here. So yes, with Drebbel and New Atlantis "homage", and a hundred smaller points, the criticism dissuaded me, but with Modern Forgery, the lack of convincing arguments against my findings and opinions does "raise my confidence in it".

Rich