You didn't present any new argumentation. I've already rebutted all of this argumentation ad-nauseum in the past.
No, it's a theory. We've been through this countless times. You have no idea how science works. At that moment, yes there is. ALL theories begin as circular arguments. You also have no idea how logic works. Correct. That THEORY will never get recognized as a THEORY OF SCIENCE. It has issues, such as not being specific nor producing a specific result. It was a quick simplistic example that the poster provided, so I decided to go along with it (and discuss the process behind how a theory becomes a theory of science) rather than nit pick about the vagueness of the theory itself. Irrelevant. Science is NOT a journal, nor is it peer review, nor is it any sort of publication. NONE of those things are requirements of science. NONE of those things "bless, sanctify, or otherwise make holy" any theory into a theory of science. Yup.
Definitions are important; how else does anyone achieve the ability to communicate if words don’t have shared meaning?
Popper certainly accepted hypotheses that do not refer to a theory. Popper was very involved in problems of hypotheses that ARE constructed in order to attack or support existing theories. Popper was seriously interested with issues of how theories are supported or falsified. So, his focus on hypotheses for that purpose is not surprising. But, he was certainly in agreement that hypotheses don't need to be created for that purpose - hypotheses he called "ad hoc". He clearly recognized that such hypotheses are important in moving science forward. Popper's own example was the hypothesis that there is a planet beyond Neptune. That hypothesis is not aimed at any theory. Yet it is fuly qualified as an hypothesis. You can't take Popper's focus on one purpose of hypotheses as an indication that only such hypotheses are acceptable.
Coincidently, an example of evidence challenging current theory, surfaced today in an article entitled, Rethinking cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform. https://phys.org/news/2020-04-basic-assumption-universe.html Note what questions have resulted. This is part of the Scientific Process, the incremental process of that that moves understanding forward.
Fishermen should listen to what precisely? In regard to what I posted regarding fishing, I didn’t posit a theory. I had a question, now how do you go about logically framing and answering the question? BTW, curious, do you suppose there exists a theory of fishing?
