In theory, one might say judge each case on its individual merits, but some doubt whether it would be done in a proper way, ... There isn't going to be an easy solution. I think if you have a policy statement that homosexuals ought not to be studying for the priesthood at least it gives seminaries a way to act.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it

The theory behind a [debtor-in-possession] loan is that it is first among equals in the bankruptcy process,

[And when Levine explains his approach, it is not just a theory. He has been called one of the world's great orchestra builders during his time at the Met.] So much has to do with what they do instinctively, what they do perfectly without having to rehearse it, how they interact with colleagues, ... whether what they give keeps getting bigger and bigger in the orchestra or whether they shrink somehow.

Action will remove the doubt that theory cannot solve