City Research Online

Abstract

Marmor’s points are well taken, but they were mostly fully recognized in the analyses for the article itself.1 The form of evidence in my title is not specified, but I would certainly agree that the evidence is circumstantial in legalistic terms, in the sense that no one item constitutes proof but rather each adds an increment of probability to the case. In the absence of specifics, Marmor’s claim that the analyses could have “just as convincingly led to the opposite conclusion” is unsupported. If these are not portraits of Leonardo da Vinci, they lead to no conclusion about his ocular alignment, not to the opposite conclusion.

Publication Type:	Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > RE Ophthalmology
Departments:	School of Health & Psychological Sciences > Optometry & Visual Sciences
SWORD Depositor:	Symplectic Administrator

Export

Downloads