29-08-2026, 05:07 PM
(29-08-2026, 01:25 PM)MarcoP wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.They are similar in all being pure speculation, so you get my point. It’s probably just me, but I cannot make sense of arguments that compare evidence with speculation.
Of course, there is speculation and speculation, and aliens are in different category, I apologize.
I appreciate that. There are different levels of speculation, with some speculation being more reasonable, and other speculation being unreasonable. In my opinion, speculating that if we were to take more samples that we may find more of them like one of the samples already taken is basically the exact same assertion that the conclusion of the report has. What is being asserted here is -as far as I can see- that if we were to take samples from the rest of the folios they would likely all be similar to the 4 already taken. All I said is that many of them could be similar to 1 of those samples (f68).
Now, maybe there is no strong evidence that the other pages would/should be any different, but is a sample size of 4 pages from only 2 sections truly enough evidence to say that all of the rest of the pages are almost certainly the same? The sample size is too low to be representative for the entirety of the VMS in my view.
On the other hand, if my assertion is that the manuscript could possibly be a composite split by topical section, I also have to admit that 3 samples from 1 section does constitute a pretty reasonable sample size, so I should, would and do accept the dating range from the averaging of those 3 samples for that section.