From a purely epistemological perspective, secure identification of the causal agent is historically the last element to be identified in a casual relationship. Examples of "if we do X, Y happens, but we don't know why" vastly outnumber cases in which we do know why. Insisting on a causal agent before admitting an obvious relationship is pure midwittery.
From a purely epistemological perspective, secure identification of the causal agent is historically the last element to be identified in a casual relationship. Examples of "if we do X, Y happens, but we don't know why" vastly outnumber cases in which we do know why. Insisting on a causal agent before admitting an obvious relationship is pure midwittery.
From a purely epistemological perspective, secure identification of the causal agent is historically the last element to be identified in a casual relationship. Examples of "if we do X, Y happens, but we don't know why" vastly outnumber cases in which we do know why. Insisting on a causal agent before admitting an obvious relationship is pure midwittery.
Or perhaps "uber midwittery"? :-) as Jason said on Sunday.