Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-28615841-20160601023944/@comment-27701762-20160603022648

I know it's just a theory. My critique of the argument is not a critique of you personally. But in thinking about theories we need a way of evaluating them to either prove or disprove them, since a theory is meant to be an explanation of the world or story as intended by the author, and not just a set of ideas about what each individual person might like to think. In dealing with those evaluations, we need to think about a lot of things: the underlying assumptions of the argument, the parts of the argument and how they contribute to the conclusion, and the evidence being used for the argument. It's a lot to keep track of.

At the end of the day, there are far more theories than can actually be true. So most theories are going to be wrong. What is important isn't getting it right the first time, but trying, failing, and learning from that failure to improve the next time. The real danger of being bad at creating theories is when we are more beholden to the conclusions than to the search for the "truth." Critical evaluation (both from others and from ourselves) is key.

So maybe Sans and Papyrus are Gaster's sons. As a theory, it's weak. But that's because there is almost no real information about Gaster, so any theory about Gaster is inherently weak.

I'm not telling you to abandon the idea. If, given the fact that we just don't know who Gaster really is, you want to stick to the idea that he is the skeletons' father, then feel free. But insofar as we endorse this conclusion beyond what we can verify (i.e. beyond what is properly "theory"), we need to treat the narrative as what it is: headcanon. And if in the meantime we can find further evidence for or against the theory, the idea can be revisited, re-evaluated, and adopted or abandoned as necessary.