>The thing is the article is starting out with the sort of network of semi-causal explanations that aircraft designers have and pointing out that this isn't sim

>The thing is the article is starting out with the sort of network of semi-causal explanations that aircraft designers have and pointing out that this isn't simple causality, isn't just a line of causal events. I'd argue that it absolutely is simple causality. Sure we have to flail around in the dark a little to get to a better plane, but they physically test things during development. That's simple causality right there. I guess I'm arguing that engaging in active (not watching someone else do it) trial and error is a case of causal reasoning.