Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27524978-20160210030742/@comment-27980208-20160325005743

Invader Jib wrote: I'm not sure what you mean. Outright true theories are rare to nonexistent, you're right, but there are varying degress of credible theories, and debate over that can often lead to thoughtful discussion. Sure, theories deserve credit, but just because they are highly credible doesn't mean that you should necessarily believe it. Matt does say at the end of every video: "But that's just a theory! A GAME THEORY!" A theory can be described as "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." Think about Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. It's not scientifically proven correct, but it does have convincing evidence to lead to it. So, does that mean that humans are really descendants of apes? Not necessarily, no. So think about it this way: Is it actually confirmed that Sans and Ness are the same person? No, and the same is with the Theory of Evolution.

To summarize, theories can be highly credible, but that still doesn't mean they're true.

Yossipossi wrote: Another thing, if we all said "Meh, it's just a theory, probably not true" and ignord it, then we would be living in the industrial era (Approx 200 years ago). That's true, but that's a theory that changed something, whereas the theories in this instance talk about past identities. Theories like the one you're mentioning require physical testing, which can lead to an actual result. The type of theory this discussion is about requires facts and confirmation, not testing. If you aren't following, then let me say this: Unless it is confirmed to be true by Toby Fox, then it's not proven. I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss it, but I am saying that people shouldn't feud about it like some people do when dicussing other theories (YouTube comments, mostly).