[split] Authority and the Appeal to it.

[RadioFM]

For example, you might want to try and find correlation between a hand and glyph/vord statistics, see if different hands follow distinct statistical patterns. You might want to check if a given hand writes in just one or multiple Voynichese dialects, if they make many "mistakes", if they have preference for line-initial and line-ending glyphs.
There are scenarios where partitioning the VMS according to different hands instead of quires/topics is worth pursuing. I don't think handwriting analysis is a completely isolated question outside of text analysis.

Five scribes have been proposed by Lisa, that's a fact. One can refer to that fact, if it is relevant, without needing to fake expertise. For example: "This study found no significant difference between the entropy values of sections of the text belonging to the five scribes proposed by Davis (ref)." Without adding "andthussheiswrongandiamrightanditwasjusttheonebadhombreallalongwoohootheoryisbackonthemenuboys!"

I'm guessing this is a jab at TT's tone?
I'm not defending his tone nor the entirety of his objections, nor am I saying that LFD is wrong; she probably has more expertise on many matters regarding the materiality, codicology and paleography of the VMS than most (if not everyone) here.

What I'm arguing against is this line of rhetoric:

Well yes, but the expert in this case is someone that has spent time sitting through thousands of manuscripts over years, so QED.

It's essentially an appeal to authority, plain and simple. I think it's unproductive and can dishearten researchers. I mean, why would I bother disputing say, Marci's purported handwriting on f1r, if I'll ultimately be met with "Your research is basically moot because you're no professional paleographer.", even if not said explicitly