What's a judge and jury to
think about causality, much less an alleged nuisance and remedy?
Not exact matches
All I am arguing for in my comment (# 176) is that the actual logical position
about causality and proof of
causality be stated accurately (I don't
think that Revkin did this, while I do
think that Gavin did) so that stakeholders can make their own decisions
about what action they
think they should take now to manage the potential risk.
The scientific way of
thinking is an ideal means for resolving questions
about causality, providing valuable guidance when there are conflicting views on matters concerning physical relationships.
Reasoning backwards
about causality produces backward
thinking.
When wrestling with selection versus
causality (not my topic today), it's useful to
think clearly
about what a person has or does not have control over.