Rosettes and Revelations Pt.1: The Holy City - Koen Gheuens and Cary Rapaport

[Mark Knowles]

These methodical differences are interesting.

They sure are.

Yes, I increasingly think these methodological questions need to be fundamentally discussed. It seems that such diverse theories of this page potentially reflect a real problem with the approach to Voynich research. I wonder what philosophers of the study of history have written on this subject.

What I'm saying is that accounting for all the details doesn't necessarily make a theory any better.

I think the word "accounting" is relevant here. It is true that I could randomly select a detail on the page and then randomly attach an associated term from the encyclopedia to it as the explanation of that detail. Clearly, that is a terrible basis for any theory as it is random and arbitrary. However, that could be viewed as "accounting" for that detail. Whether "accounting" is the same as "explaining" in a logically consistent way is relevant. So I guess what is entailed in the "accounting" process is relevant. One could argue that explaining all the details does make a theory better.