[split] Voynich 2026 Conference QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

[eggyk]

But my point is that science is advanced more often by the the first kind of scientist than by the second kind.  The latter will often pass on the theory because doing the necessary experiments (including those that are likely to refute it) it would require a lot of work. And he would probably give up after the first test that says "probably not" -- instead of looking for an explanation that would excuse that result, or just filing it into the "think later" folder and keep looking for  the proof.

You must not be up to date with dark matter and cosmology.. looking for explanations to excuse results has basically become the entire field of research  

But again I don't agree. Firstly about the 2nd kind of scientist having seemingly no motivation or drive. Why do you assume that someone would give up after one test?

Secondly, I would argue the vast majority of breakthroughs and progress do not come from scientists who are convinced of their hunch, but rather scientists that run into anomalies while testing the status quo who then theorise why the anomaly arose. Many other breakthroughs come from carrying out the tests that are formulated as ways of proving/disproving existing theories. And on the whole, both proving and disproving a theory is seen as a step in the right direction. I think most physicists would love to be able to disprove Einstein's theories somehow, and many people have tried -and failed- to do so. But they did not "fail", they provided valuable data and confimation of the leading theories. 

So I just don't see this world of scientists running around trying to convince others of their theories in the way you describe, and I would say the 2nd type of scientist represents the majority of modern scientific progress (post 1900AD or so).