@HawkChamp
Its easy to get confused about what others mean in their writing.
For future reference, I try never to deal in rumors, without identifying them as such, and then usually in humorous posts. Regarding theory, I try always to use theory as a proven explanation, or assertion, describing a phenomena. I try to be consistent in using this definition of theory for two reasons. First, I know that the word theory has many definitions and so how is a board rat going to know which definition I intend if I use it one way one time, and another way another time? I also use theory in the way I do, because it is helps keep clear in my and readers’ thinking the distinction between hypothesis and theory, between a proposed possible explanation, and a proven one.
Folks around here that read me regularly understand that while lots of folks use theory to mean everything from an empirically verified fact, to an explanation found true by a jury, to an assertion supported by a lot of evidence, to a refuted hypothesis, to an inconclusive hypothesis, to an untested hypothesis, to off the cuff guesses, to outright smoke coming out of the posterior, I try to be consistent in my use of the term theory, so that persons understand me…
I deal in phenomena I can observe on TV, or at a game (the latter sadly too rarely), and what is reported, and then hypothesize about it. Even if I argue based on my hypothesizing that it appears likely that my explanation is accurately in conformance with reality, I am not in a position to assert such with an empirically verified level of statistical significance, or in my defintion of the word, to characterize something as a theory in any proven sense. So: my “explanations” of observable events rarely get beyond the hypothetical stage. Once in a while over time facts and further observations may emerge and lend support to my hypotheses. But hypothesizing is really all I try to do here; that and try to be funny from time to time, depending on my level of creativity at any given time.
I don’t deal in “theories” much. Theories to me are already proven according to a reasonable methodology of analysis and standard of evidentiary support and so I hardly need to “deal” in them. Most of us are already aware of the proven stuff.
For one example, I try NOT to propose conspiracy theories, because I lack the expertise, funds and time in most cases to analyse and conclusively support, or refute, hypotheses about conspiracies to the point of proving them to be conspiracy theories. I try to look at things from the non-conspiracy point of view and see if there are any plausible hypotheses that might be formulated to explain a phenomena without conspiracy.
As I like to say, conspiracy theories (unless proven) are for suckers, and are best left to the authorities.
And if they are already proven, then there is nothing to dispute, or analyse, anyway, right?
So: it makes good sense for you to disagree with my injury hypotheses, when you suspect, or find, evidence that refutes them. And to argue for them , when you find evidence that supports them. And I will be grateful, when you do, because I like to keep refining my hypotheses, or junking them, when evidence and/or logic dictates doing so.
But I have to say with all due respect that, so far, on this particular subject of team performance this season, I don’t read any facts, or observations, or logics, that tends to refute plausibly the hypotheses I’ve proposed.
But each game generates new evidence that could blow my performance/injury hypotheses out of water.
Rock Chalk!
