No, we always have to make assumptions. That’s the basis of any rational argument. The point is being able to recognize (and be able to examine) what are assumptions and what are conclusions. And then recognizing that the conclusions are only as good as the assumptions. Right?
There’s this gizmo I learned studying formal logic with many names (I learned it as the ‘Munchhausen trilemma’) that posits all rational arguments must rely on feet of sand. I kinda like it. It’s an assumption, of course.
Anyway, I have no clue as to what Pohlad, Falvey, and Zoll might have discussed in private, so I draw no conclusions. And continue to mourn Dolly.