(Yesterday, 02:25 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Yesterday, 01:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The 15th century creation of the Voynich MS is not a theory. That line is just rhetoric by Rich. It is the default, and any alternative needs solid evidence.
This argument by Rich misuses or misunderstands the various definitions of the word "theory". It is straight from the pseudoscientist's playbook. "Evolution is just a theory!"
From Wikipedia:
Quote:In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science [...] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.
Darwin's theory of evolution is the first kind. Since its inception, it has been changed, improved, added to... as is expected in the natural sciences.
Rich's theory is of the second type, "something that is unproven or speculative".
Assuming that something is an authentic version of itself is not a theory of any kind.
The Wikipedia definition of theory is misleading though.
There was an effort to establish a specialized definition for the word theory -- one that is somehow unique to scientific usage and that involves an emphasis on certainty of its claims. That only started around the 1980's though, and it largely came out of the rising debates on Evolution, starting with Stephen Jay Gould. The modified definition spread more widely later on when American educators were responding to the push to include Creationism in schools.
The aim of coming up with that special definition was to counter arguments that were being posed against Evolution -- and, in particular, those of the Creationists (which were the source of your "pseudoscientist" reference.) They were trying to combat implications that Evolution was a theory
only in the more colloquial sense of the word -- that is, being only a guess or a hunch that lacks any actual evidence. They wanted to weaken those criticisms by implanting, into the discourse, the idea that true scientists used the word "theory" in the sense of "proven certain" and never in the sense of "just a theory".
You can see that effort in the way Wikipedia piles on pleonastic modifiers to add stuff that already went without saying:
"a
well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way
consistent with the scientific method, and
fulfilling the criteria required by modern science" [emphasis is mine].
Of course, scientists don't use the word in that loose way that non-scientists might use it in everyday banter. But they also don't use it to refer only to an idea that it is so well-confirmed that it is certain and indisputable. That is a fabrication.
Instead of Stephen Jay Gould (and most certainly instead of Wikipedia, which is known for editors acting to enforce political biases), one should look to Thomas Kuhn' whose concepts of what a theory is, are truer to the practical usage in science. (Hopefully his classic book is already familiar to people here, but if not it is
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
In most fields of science, a theory involves a "model" that provides a conceptual representation of the real world. That model can be used to explain the empirical observations and also to predict the behavior and reactions expected in controlled experiments. But in forensic fields (like we have with VMS research) where we are not trying to predict behavior, but simply trying to explain collected observations, a "story" would be the analogous element. The theory's story describes a sequence of events that explain the observations.
In any case though, it is the theory with the most explanatory power that is, typically, the one that most will subscribe to because it is most useful for understanding the observations or for predicting what will happen under given conditions. And so typically, that theory will dominate the community and it usually becomes
THE theory for a period of time. (Not always, but usually. The supersedence of Newton's theory of gravity by Einstein's theory is an example where the old theory, despite being dis-proven, remains dominant for most practical purposes because it retained explanatory power.)
But the dominant status does not mean, as the Wikipedia description implies, that the theory is now "proven" and therefore it is the "correct" theory that no other can replace. Any theory remains only as good as its explanatory power and, if another theory comes along with greater explanatory power, then that new theory usually becomes
THE theory. (Although the transition is not simple -- which is the main subject of Kuhn's book.)
The point is, scientists do NOT simply use "theory" to refer to some one-and-only theory that is proven while considering all others to be without evidence (or what Wikipedia incorrectly calls "hypotheses"). They consider contending theories to be on a spectrum with different amounts of evidence and different explanatory powers. And when there is one with significantly more explanatory power, then it is generally more widely adopted ... while it lasts.
Contrary to your comment, Koen, Rich's argument doesn't misuse or misunderstand the "various definitions of the word 'theory'". (Nor does Rich himself, by the way.) He is simply proposing a theory (his
Modern Forgery Theory) that challenges the current widely accepted theory (I think he calls it the
1420 genuine theory, but I usually say the
15th century theory or something to that effect). BOTH theories have evidence and BOTH have stories that explain some, but not all, of the observations. Which one has the greater explanatory power at this point in time is certainly a matter of opinion -- there are questions that each one can answer and others that they cannot answer but only propose plausible explanations. But NEITHER theory is proven.
You clearly think that the 15th century THEORY is
significantly more explanatory, which is fine by me (and I'll venture to say, is fine be Rich). We can all agree there is evidence that supports it. But it is delusional to think that that theory is therefore proven, that it is the only valid theory, or that anything suggesting evidence that contradicts it is simply invalid. (That last part is me -- I don't know if Rich would call you delusional.)
Ironically, you are also trying to do what the Creationists were trying to do (or at least what the Evolutionists believed they were trying to do) and which was largely responsible for the Evolutionists trying to promulgate a new definition for "scientific theory" in the first place. You are trying to dismiss Rich's theory by suggesting that it is a theory in that common or everyday sense of the word -- a hunch that is unproven and without evidence. But both theories still do remain unproven and both involve speculations (as you did claim, but misleadingly, only on Rich's.)
By the way, if I recall correctly, Lisa Fagin-Davis has emphasized the point in her latest lectures that the authenticity of the VMS can NEVER be proven! One CAN prove it is a forgery, but one cannot prove it is authentic. The reasons should be obvious, but I think she also explained them.
Aside: Rene calls the 15th century theory the "default" . On the other hand he also doesn't think it is a theory. Of course, I realize he is trying to suggest is that it is the ONLY CORRECT theory -- the ONE theory that is "proven", Basically that is just subscribing to the fabricated idea that the Evolutionists came up with ... that scientists use the word "theory" for that special status that assumes it is so well-confirmed that it is therefore the only theory -- beyond questioning and sacrosanct.