[split] Voynich 2026 Conference QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

[Jorge_Stolfi]

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 ... [carry out tests] that are formulated as ways of proving/disproving existing theories...

Yes, yes, ideally a scientist should not believe or publish his theory until he obtains proof that can convince the others too.  Ideally he should do experiments without regard to the chance that they may support or discredit  his theory.  Ideally, he should continue experimenting even after he gets positive or negative evidence, if the evidence is not proof that will convince others.

But that is not how humans function.  And that is not how many advances actually happen.

Newton, Pasteur, Einstein and many, many others did not wait for irrefutable proof of their theories before announcing and defending them.    They would not have done so if they were not convinced that their theories were true.  Proof that would convince others only came many years or decades after that.  They would not have kept defending their theories and looking for such proof if they were not convinced that all the negative evidence and arguments that were thrown at them must have be flawed.

Columbus would not have sailed off if he was not convinced that Japan was just over there.  Wiles would not have spent six years working on the proof of Fermat's Last "Theorem" if he was not convinced beforehand that it was true.  We probably would not have blue LEDs today if Shuiji Nakamura did not work on his idea at home for several years, after being told by his employer that it was a waste of time and money.

You must not be up to date with dark matter and cosmology.

Oh, I am very well acquainted too with matters cosmological. I can tell right away when Sabine changes her makeup or her blouse. 

All the best, --stolfi