[split] On the validation of Theories
#11
(12-08-2019, 04:49 PM)Torsten wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Usually a theory gets validated. For instance it is necessary that a theory is consistent in itself and with the known facts. A theory must also be falsifiable. With other words there must be statements that can disprove the theory. See the following link for more validation criteria: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It might be interesting that this year a course at the university of cologne was given. In this course several Voynich theories were validated (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.):
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Gibbs, Bax, Montemurro, Cheshire)
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Hauer/Kondrack, Hermes)
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Rugg, Timm)

Note: I would suggest to split this thread and to start a new thread about the validation of theories.

If there is one theory that stands out as being most likely, I reckon it's probably the Torsten Timm autocopy theory.

On another note, Reference 2, so much space devoted to the Cheshire theory? Huh
Reply
#12
Register or login to view the content
Reply
#13
Register or login to view the content
Reply
#14
Register or login to view the content
[+] 1 user says Thank You to davidjackson for this post
Reply
#15
Register or login to view the content
Reply
#16
Register or login to view the content
[+] 1 user says Thank You to Torsten for this post
Reply
#17
Register or login to view the content
[+] 1 user says Thank You to ReneZ for this post
Reply
#18
Register or login to view the content
Reply
#19
Register or login to view the content
Reply
#20
Register or login to view the content
[+] 1 user says Thank You to Torsten for this post
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)