We epistemological types would note that the term "theory" is being tossed around rather loosely by, er, what we might charitably call non-epistemological types.
Since we are dealing with an historical event and a large body of evidence, the scientific definition is not inappropriate:
A theory is "a well-established framework built upon extensive evidence." It is the highest level of scientific understanding short of an observable, scientifically proven fact. The LN narrative is a theory. Certain key aspects of the theory are subject to testing and falsification and have been confirmed.
A hypothesis is "a testable prediction or explanation that is formulated as part of research or experimentation" but has not achieved the status of a theory. The very multiplicity of CT explanations for the JFKA and the extent to which they are debated, as well as the failure of any explanation to convincingly account for Dealey Plaza, shows that none has achieved the status of a theory.
Although Flat Earthers will insist the spherical earth is "just a theory" and thus stands on the same epistemological footing as the flat earth "theory," the fact is that the spherical earth is regarded as an observable, scientifically proven fact while the flat earth is regarded as an absurd myth - not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory.
At this point, to attempt to place any CT explanation on the same footing as the LN narrative, or to use terminology such as "just a theory" in regard to the LN narrative, is completely invalid. Dan has conceded that his LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley scenario is pure speculation and cannot account for Oswald. In epistemological terms, it would be a "wild guess."
Everyone should read Thomas Kuhn's seminal The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and at least some basic works on epistemology. Epistemological ignorance really is at the root of much JFKA debate.
For anyone unfamiliar with this new-wave brand of Lone Nut lunacy, here's a classic example.
From the same post:
" The LN narrative is a theory."and then this:
"... to use terminology such as "just a theory" in regard to the LN narrative, is completely invalid."
I mean...honestly...how do you begin to deal with this kind of mentality.
In Lance's world I can say "the LN narrative isn't a fact, it's a theory" and that's valid.
But if I say "the LN narrative isn't a fact, it's just a theory", well...that's totally unacceptable
Oh brother...
It's great fun to point out to the most rabid Nutters it is a
theory that Oswald took the shots that killed JFK. They literally cannot deal with this. You can almost hear the tears of frustration hitting the keyboard as Corbett types - 'There are some things for which there is so much evidence that they are no longer theories. Oswald killing JFK is one of those things."
Really?
Are you sure about that?
At least Lance has stayed true to his pretence of being an open-minded Nutter and managed to actually type the sentence about the LN narrative being a theory, even if he immediately retracts it.
"epistemological types"?
I do admire the combination of arrogance and dumbness.
Oswald killing JFK is just a theory. That's a fact.
