The BS called if you are not a pro!

[Montreal]

If that rule applies to every theory, and "deep enough" does not have a clear meaning and lets say I am the coach, then wouldn't the same rule still govern my theories?

I only used the psychoanalytic theory as an example... or maybe I don't follow.
I'm just saying that theory that u do not have the capacity to make judgements on how TM should be is unfalsifiable because there is nothing u could say to disprove it because (according to this logic) ur not the coach and the assumption "that if ur not the coach u don't know what's best" exists.
Hope this clears things up, I'm not taking anyone's side, just commenting on the thread.

[BehzadB]

I only used the psychoanalytic theory as an example... or maybe I don't follow.
I'm just saying that theory that u do not have the capacity to make judgements on how TM should be is unfalsifiable because there is nothing u could say to disprove it because (according to this logic) ur not the coach and the assumption "that if ur not the coach u don't know what's best" exists.
Hope this clears things up, I'm not taking anyone's side, just commenting on the thread.

And I appriciate that. I was trying to undrestand that "essential rule that governs every theory" a little better. Cuz I don't know anything about it and I think I am still a little lost about it. sorry man, when it comes to the psychoanalysis, I am lost already.

[perspolees]

I only used the psychoanalytic theory as an example... or maybe I don't follow.
I'm just saying that theory that u do not have the capacity to make judgements on how TM should be is unfalsifiable because there is nothing u could say to disprove it because (according to this logic) ur not the coach and the assumption "that if ur not the coach u don't know what's best" exists.
Hope this clears things up, I'm not taking anyone's side, just commenting on the thread.

In medical research we use the null theory every day which is a better example.
You try to rule out the null theory and by doing that you want to establish statistical significance. In other words you want to show that the chance of that thing that you have proven to happen based on luck and errors is less than 5%.



your assumption of unfalsifiability of the said theory is just an assumption!
the core of the argument is just there!
You say:
"the assumption "that if ur not the coach u don't know what's best" exists."

This assumption is not a validated assumption! it is a blanket statement that does not hold mud let alone water

everyday coaches are fired because they do not know what's the best!! and someone other than them does! ( or maybe even does not) and that person is not necessarily a coach!

but a much better assumption that could be proven perhaps a lot easier is here:

Some knowledgable fans may know whats best for a team than that team's coach!
The chance of this assumption being true is much higher than the assumption of if I am not the coach then I do not know jack! therefor putting down thoughts and exchange of thoughts just based on lack of a degree is a mere redicule..

It all depends what you are trying to prove and what kind of method you are using. In essence and generally speaking proof of of rigid statements that has a "must" in it is a lot more difficult than the ones that has a "may" in it. This of course is in a situation that we have defined and agree on what "best" is! assuming that we have done that then "may" is a better way to go...and if we have not defined "best" and other paramaters of what team what coach etc...the fallacy of such a blanket statement is even worse.

[Doctor DOOM]

and he best thing is nobody gets technical or highly academic to discuss the problems.
no-one is saying we must try this variation in pass-back or that style of crossing from the corner flag or ... .
( maximum is something like, why dont we once in a while use the NEAR posts to cross, and are so predictable in always crossing to the FAR post? which is a valid point anyway)

those problems are out there for ALL REGULAR FOLKS to see and recognize.

highly vivid and clear deficiencies.

and ppl have a right to ask why these defects are not addressed and solved in such a long time !!!

[zzgloo]

For god's sake, lets not forget PFDC, is an internet football fan community, under no dictatorship......
It is a free enviroment, and it is just football........
We are free to think what ever we want, believe what ever we want, and say what ever we want.....
It is only, if we cut done on direct insults, we will have a more civilized exchanges, ...and even that is not absolute !