So you have now advanced to the Gettier Problem. Here's the way I see it. Buck developed most of his thoughts on the subject in the 1940s and 1950s, long before the advent of things like underwater cameras, tiny implantable transmitters and tracking, as well as a host of other technologies. As Ralph touches on, there are things we know now that he simply couldn't know then. But here are the keys for me.
First, he was the one who pioneered most of what we call 'structure fishing' today, including much of the terminology still in use. If you (figuratively) are going to carry on a deeper discussion on the merits of what he wrote and believed, you need to have put in the time reading his material so that you understand where he was coming from and what he was saying. To argue against a position you haven't studied or tried to understand only makes your position weak.
Beyond that, on the questionable stuff as mentioned by Ralph, I give Buck the benefit of the doubt by saying 'he was right for the wrong reasons.' If you follow his guidelines, you will flat out catch fish. For example, does the fact that the fish moved onto the structure horizontally instead of as vertically as Buck suggested really matter to the guy who just caught a sack full of bass? In a technical sense, yes, it's good to know, but in a practical sense, one could argue it doesn't matter. One would certainly be foolish in my eyes to discount everything Buck wrote because of these technicalities. Things such as depth and speed as the two primary controls are still the hallmark of great systems such as In-Fisherman's F+L+P=S to this day.
In the end, what you make of this sport and the way you approach it or play it is up to each one of us to decide. More power to you in whatever form that takes. But to use another idiom, be careful about throwing out the baby with the bath water.
-T9