[split] Voynich 2026 Conference QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

[Mauro]

That is a naive view of how science is done.  In reality, science usually advances only when a scientist notices some peculiar pattern in some data, invents a theory to explain it, becomes convinced that it is likely to be true, and works hard to find evidence that can convince others of it.  That is, conviction usually comes before the proof, not after it.

I wholly agree with most of your post, in particular that usually conviction comes before the proof. Where I don't agree is the methodological part: working hard only to find evidence to prove one's theory is dangerous and leads to blunders. One should work hard to prove his theory, of course, but even harder to try to disprove it: only failing to do it can make one confident his theory is true and ready for peer review. Else he's publishing at his own risk.