Going OT, but back then, I think "why" in regards to a lot of environmental questions was simply unknown. Not that they didn't want to explain why, but they actually didn't know. That said, Buck did always say that every time you caught a bass, you needed to ask yourself "why" that fish was there (more in relationship to how he got there though). Technology now allows us to dig deeper and get answers to a lot of these questions, but back in the 1950s and 1960s when much of Buck's theories were developed and shared, they didn't have readily available and affordable things like personal underwater cameras, tiny radio transmitters for telemetry tracking, lithium powered micro batteries and transmitters, etc. They barely even had depthfinders - lol. I don't think they could explain a lot. Instead, they used angling as the means to identify "what is," and then fit the explanation to the result. What else could they do? What amazes me is how well some of these theories still hold up 60 years later.
I have to admit I get a big kick these days watching all these GoPro anglers, offering a host of explanations for why they're catching fish in their videos - "They're feeding on crawdads in the rocks, and my bait is a perfect match," or "The wind is blowing into this pocket stirring up the invertebrates and piling up plankton, and the shad are following," even, "These rocks are holding heat and making these bass more active," yada, yada, yada. Did you cut that fish open and see what it was feeding on? Do you somehow see these schools of baitfish in the water you say these fish are feeding on? Did you take a temperature gauge and test this rock heating theory out? In a way, things haven't changed 60 years later
-T9